Skip to main content

Full text of "Moralia, in fifteen volumes, with an English translation by Frank Cole Babbitt"

See other formats


othe 


ἽΝ 


acs 


hii 


t 
it 


nihaiee 
ἀνε τον 


| 


i 
Heh 


᾿ 
+ 
᾿ 
ὁ 


+ 
ΘΟ 


τὴν 


ci 
i= 
= 
+ 


it 


= 


itis 


ΜΙ 
ἐδ ἀν} ΡΣ 
tt idjapis 


ΠῚ 


ht 


ἘΠῚ 


Hea 
ni 


a 


mai 


Het 


ἐπ 
Fer ey their je bese bear try 
Δ δι δι οἰκαν ae mie ble 


Mil 


ΜΗ 
ΤῊ ΗΜ 
silt Tey fide ΤΗΝ Werte 
STE Lebel 
ἵ > i 


ΠΩ 


μι 


ΠΡΌΗΙ 
feet 


sTileteleislerayaie 


il 


[ 


JO ALISHAA 


0 
| 


OLNOHOL 


nt 


the 


ἀ δι 


rege 


re eibrasetst 
beter Tei TI 
ΤΉ ; 
ibitiae 
Rete 


nit te 


! 
ῃ 
Pte 


ἘΠῊΝ 


ΟΣ Στ eet 


ΤΩΙ 
peste ΤΥ 


yet ep ard 


Llsajalstehspersisis 
ΠΉΜΉΗ 
ΗΠ 


re 
Flere 


ΜΗ 


rreee tie) 
sities 


ΩΝ 
i 


ΟΕ 
ΠΗ 


a 


sithbiipinieits 


ὍΝ 
ῃ 


ft 


Η 


she 
i 


HL a alaiele 
ΠΟΘΙ 





ἀμ 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation 


https://archive.org/details/moraliaintfifteen12plutuoft 


Ἧι 


᾿ ΤΥ ag 
\ if Abt 
ΣΝ ΓΝ Ν “ἢ 
᾿ ay ΠΣ ; 
᾿ 


ων νον 





Pa eee ann 
7 | ΑΕ ΓΤ ΒΥ " ; 
vo | Tat | 


_ ᾿ i 
is -— -_ σα 
i 
: 7 
= 7 
᾿ 
a 
( ᾿ 
με ᾿" ie 
: ἢ se | my 
j 
0 
οὐ ᾿ 
: 
7 Ὁ 
1 ᾿ ἵγ ᾿ ἐ ; - 
ὃ ᾿ ΠΡ 7 7 : 
i : ey, 
7 ΠΥ ν ᾿ 





“ 


ἱ 7 
"ὁ oe 
h ; Di 
i ᾿ 
υ 
ES 7 
4 





THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY 


FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. 


EDITED BY 
1. E. PAGE, c.#., LITT.D. 
ἜΣ CAPPS, PH.D., LL.D. ΤᾺ. HD: ROUSE, LITT.D. 
meee OST, M.A. E. H. WARMINGTON, M.A., F.R-HIST.SOC. 


PiU LARCH S 
MORALIA 


XII 





᾿ a Hoda TUE 
ATTARONS » 
Wz 


ΕΠ {ΠῚ τ ΓΒ 
MORALIA 


WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY 
HAROLD CHERNISS 


THE INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, PRINCETON, N.J. 
AND 
WILLIAM C. HELMBOLD 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 


IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES 


XII 
920 A—999 B 


CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
LONDON 


WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD 
MCMLVII 





se 
{ι 
ΓΓ ἔν ed fg 
Ui Lt | Ὀ σοῦ fa 
ary ᾿ 7 j 
: y 
J 


4153693 


Printed in Great Britain 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME ΧΗ 


PAGE 
IR ἘΠ AB es et ee a ee τ AVL 


Tue TRADITIONAL ORDER OF THE Books OF THE 
ΠΟΙ wae ey, Ikea! ρα τε aN RS BS TS 


CONCERNING THE Fack WHICH APPEARS IN THE 
Ors or THE Moon— 


Introduction... 5 ee ae 2 
Text and aeanslation. ΠΥ ee 34. 


On THE PRINCIPLE OF CoLD— 


Introduction . . ΠΤ ον ΟΝ 
Text and Tanslation- δ Ini ee eee ee ee ΜῪ (0 () 


WHETHER FIRE oR WATER IS MORE USEFUL— 


Introduction ... Ee oir ete 988 

Text and ΠΝ ταν an ene OO) 
WHETHER Lanp or SEA ANIMALS ARE CLE- 

VERER— 

iiitreductione .4. 0 Mea eS ee ’Π’Π 91] 

Text and Translation ἮΝ ee ben on iia PLS 

NPM CM OG οροὁΕΨΦἘΕ͵ἍΠσἍἘΠορἀΈττ aoe Sane τ 481 
BEASTS ARE RATIONAL— 

INGEOGNetION aan as) es 6 oe 499 

Text and Translation Mle vars a oe LAO 


CONTENTS 


On THE EatTinG or FLEsH— 
Introduction a! 
Text and Translation— 

I 
II 


INDEX 


PAGE 


537 


540 
562 


580 


PREFACE 


To prevent misunderstanding the editors wish to 
make it clear that the essays contained in this 
volume are not works of collaboration. Mr. Cherniss 
is entirely responsible for the text and translation 
of the first essay (pp. 1-223), Mr. Helmbold for all 
the rest of the volume. 





ες 4? Foc! af “ni 
ψ ΠῚ Ὧ]Ὶ TiN Sit yd τ νυ 
ἱ J »" Ls ofGley 
’ Ps 


eens 


THE TRADITIONAL ORDER or tHE Books of 
the Moralia as they appear since the edition of 
Stephanus (1572), and their division into volumes 


in this edition. 


I. De liberis educandis (Ilepi παίδων ἀγωγῆς) . 
Quomodo adolescens poetas audire debeat 
(Πῶς δεῖ τὸν νέον ποιημάτων ἀκούειν) 
De recta ratione audiendi (Περὶ τοῦ ἀκούειν) 
Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 
(Πῶς ἄν τις διακρίνειε τὸν κόλακα τοῦ φίλου). 
Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus 
(Πῶς ἂν τις αἴσθοιτο ἑαυτοῦ προκόπτοντος ἐπ᾽ 
ἀρετῇ) . 
{1 De capienda ex inimicis utilitate (lias av τις 
ὑπ᾽ ἐχθρῶν ὠφελοῖτο) 
De amicorum multitudine (Ilepi πολυφιλία) 
De fortuna (Ilepi τύχης) : 
De virtute et vitio (Ilepi ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας) 
Consolatio ad Apollonium (ΠΠαραμυθητικὸς πρὸς 
᾿ΑπολλώνιονῚ 
De tuenda sanitate praecepta Ἢ Ἷ a 
αγγέλματα) 
Coniugalia praecepta ( αμικὰ παραγγέλματα). 
— Septem sapientium convivium (Τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν 
συμπόσιον) : 
De superstitione (Περὶ. Scr δ 5. ; 
Iii. Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata (’ oe: 
φθέγματα βασιλέων καὶ στρατηγῶν) : 
Apophthegmata Laconica (᾿ Αποφθέγματα Nee 
KWVLKG) . 
Instituta Laconica (Ta Pate aoe ἜΣ 
ἐπιτηδεύματα). 


»" 
͵ 


5A 
S6B 
934 
97c 
1008 
101F 


1228 
1384 


1468 
1648 


172A 
2084 


236F 
ΙΧ 


IW: 


Vi. 


VET. 


THE TRADITIONAL ORDER 


Lacaenarum Pa (Λακαινῶν ἀπο- 
φθέγματα) : 

Mulierum virtutes (Τυναικῶν ἀρεταί) 

Quaestiones Romanae (Αἴτια ‘Pwpaixa). 

Quaestiones Graecae (Αἴτια ‘EAAnuixa) . Ξ 

Parallela Graeca et Romana (Συναγωγὴ ἕστο- 
ριῶν παραλλήλων “EAAnvikav καὶ “Pwpaikdr) . 

De fortuna Romanorum (Ilepi τῆς Ῥωμαίων 


De i ees magni ‘fortuna aut virtute, li- 
bri ii (Περὶ τῆς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου τύχης ἢ ἀρετῆς, 
λόγοι β΄) 

Bellone an pace clariores fuerint Athenienses 
(Πότερον ᾿Αθηναῖοι κατὰ pee ἢ κατὰ σοφίαν 
ἐνδοξότεροι) 


. De Iside et Osiride (Tlepi "Toidos al ’OoipiBos). 


De E apud Delphos (Περὶ τοῦ EI τοῦ ἐν Δελφοῖς) 

De Pythiae oraculis (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα 
νῦν τὴν ΤΠΙυθίαν) 

De defectu oraculorum {περὶ τῶν ἐπλελσον 
χρηστηρίων) . 

An virtus doceri possit (Εἰ διδακτόν ἢ ἡ ΤῊ 

De virtute morali (Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς dpe 

De cohibenda ira (Ilepi ἀοργησίας) 

De tranquillitate animi (Ilepi εὐθυμίας). 

De fraterno amore (Περὶ φιλαδελφίας) 

De amore prolis (Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλο- 
στοργίας) 

An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat (Ee 
αὐτάρκης ἡ κακία πρὸς κακοδαιμονίαν). 

Animine an corporis affectiones sint peiores 
(Πότερον τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ἢ τὰ τοῦ σώματος πάθη 
χείρονα). : : 

De garrulitate (Περὶ ἀδολεσχίας) 

De curiositate (Ilepi πολυπραγμοσῖν ΕΥ 

De cupiditate divitiarum (Ilepi bute hours) 

De vitioso pudore (Περὶ δυσωπίας) : 

De invidia et odio (Ilepi φθόνου καὶ lowes) 

De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando (Ilepi τοῦ 
ἑαυτὸν ἐπαινεῖν ἀνεπιφθόνως) 

De sera numinis vindicta (Περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ 
θείου βραδέως τιμωρουμένων) 


ΡΑΘΕ 


240c 
9495, 
263D 
9010 


3054 


316B 


326D 


345c 
35Ic 
384c 


394D 


4098 
4394 
440D 
452E 
4645 
A784 


4934 
4984 
5008 
502B 
515B 
523c 
528c 
5365 
5394 


5484 


VTL. 


ΧΕΙ: 


XC, 


THE TRADITIONAL ORDER 


De fato (Περὶ εἱμαρμένης) 

De genio Socratis ([lepi τοῦ Sane δαιμονίου) 

De exilio (Περὶ φυγῆς). 

Consolatio ad uxorem (]αραμυθητεκὸς εἰς τ 
γυναῖκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ). 

Quaestionum convivialium libri ix ἜΣ -: 
κῶν προβλημάτων βιβλία 8’) 

ΠΟΙ ΘΟ ΒΥ. ΠῚ ἢ Ξ IV, 659R ; 3 V, 
672D; VI, 686A 

VII, 697c; VIII, 716p; IX, 736c 

Amatorius (Epwrtkos) 

Amatoriae narrationes (’ ΤΠ ταὶ Sunyijoes) 

Maxime cum principibus philosopho esse dis- 
serendum (Περὶ τοῦ ὅτι μάλιστα τοῖς ἡγεμόσι 
δεῖ τὸν φιλόσοφον διαλέγεσθαι) . 

Αα ρτϊποίρεπη. ineruditum (Πρὸς ΠΣ 
ἀπαίδευτον) : 

An seni respublica gerenda sit (Ei Geetieko 
πολιτευτέον) 

Praecepta gerendae | reipublicae (een 
παραγγέλματα) 

De unius in republica dominatione, populari 
statu, et paucorum imperio (Ilepi μοναρχίας 
καὶ δημοκρατίας καὶ ὀλιγαρχίας) . 

De vitando aere alieno (Περὶ τοῦ μὴ Me See 
ζεσθαι) . 

τ τ oratorum (Περὶ Her Se "ΠΡ 
ρων 

Comparationis Aristophanis et Menandri com- 
pendium (Συγκρίσεως eats καὶ Mev- 
ἄνδρου ἐπιτομή) 

De Herodoti malignitate (Περὶ τῆς Ἡροδότου 
κακοηθείας) . 

De placitis philosophorum, libri v (Περὶ τῶν 
ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις, βιβλία ε. 

Quaestiones naturales (Αἴτια φυσικά) 

De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet (Περὶ τοῦ 
ἐμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῳ τῆς σελή- 


νης) : : : : 
De primo frigido (Περὶ τοῦ πρώτως ψυχροῦ) 
Aquane an ignis sit utilior (Ilepi τοῦ πότερον 
ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ χρησιμώτερον). : , 


XIII. 


XIV. 


mV 


ΧΙ 


THE TRADITIONAL ORDER 


Terrestriane an aquatilia animalia sint callidi- 
ora ore τῶν ζῴων prenpattees τὰ χερσαῖα 
ἢ τὰ ἔνυδρα) : 

Bruta animatlia ratione uti, Ὁ sive Gryllus (Περὶ 
τοῦ τὰ ἄλογα λόγῳ χρῆσθαι) 

De esu carnium orationes ii (Ilepi σαρκοφαγίας 
λόγοι β΄) 

Platonicae quaestiones (ΠἸλατωνικὰ ζητήματα). 

De animae procreatione in Timaeo (Τ]ερὶ τῆς ἐν 
Τιμαίῳ ψυχογονίαςῚ) 

Compendium libri de animae procreatione in 
Timaeo (Exrou τοῦ περὶ τῆς ev τῷ Tapes 
ψυχογονίας) 

De Stoicorum repugnantiis (ΠΩΣ Στωικῶν ἐναν- 
τιωμάτων) 

Compendium argumenti Stoicos absurdiora 
poetis dicere (Σύνοψις τοῦ ὅτι παραδοξότερα οἱ 
Συτωικοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν λέγουσι) 

De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos (Περὶ 
τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν πρὸς τοὺς Στωικούς) 

Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 
(Ὅτι οὐδ᾽ ἡδέως ζῆν ἔστι κατ᾽ ’Eixoupov) 

Adversus Colotem (Πρὸς ΚΚολώτην) 

An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum -: 
καλῶς εἴρηται τὸ λάθε βιώσας) 

De musica (Ilepi μουσικῆς). : ‘ 

Fragments and Index 


PAGE 


9594 
985D 


9934 
999c 


10124 


1030D 
10334 


1057¢ 
1058E 


1086c 
1107D 


11284 
113la 


CONCERNING THE FACE 
ἌΔΑΞ μάν ἐθὸν Gia ον ELE 
ORB OF THE MOON 


(DE FACIE QUAE IN ORBE LUNAE 
APPARET) 


VOL. XII B 


INTRODUCTION 


1. Tue authenticity of this dialogue has sometimes 
been questioned but without any plausible reason.* 
On the other hand, despite statements to the con- 
trary, it is certainly mutilated at the beginning,” 
although one cannot tell whether much or little has 
been lost ; this follows not merely from the abrupt- 
ness of the opening as we have it, the lack of any kind 
of introduction, and the failure to identify the main 
speaker until two-thirds of the dialogue have been 


@ Cf. 5. Giinther, quoted by M. Adler, Diss. Phil. Vind. 
x (1910), p. 87, and R. Pixis, Kepler als Geograph, p. 105. 
Wilamowitz (Commentariolum Grammaticum, iii, pp. 27-28) 
suggested that the dialogue was published under the name 
of Lamprias; and this notion that Lamprias was in some 
sense either the real or the reputed author was adopted by 
Christ in the third edition of his Geschichte der griechischen 
Litteratur (1898), p. 662, and by Hirzel (Der Dialog, ii, p. 185). 

Ὁ Mutilation was assumed by Xylander, Kepler, and 
Diibner and has been reasserted by Pohlenz (B.P.W. xxxii 
[1912], pp. 649-650), von Arnim (Plutarch iiber Dimonen und 
Mantik, p. 38), Raingeard (Le ΠΕΡῚ TOY ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥ͂ de 
Plutarque, pp. 49-50 on 920 8 1), and K. Ziegler (Plutarchos 
von Chaironeia, 214). It was denied by Wilamowitz (loc. 
cit.), Hirzel (Der Dialog, ii, p. 186, n. 6), and M. Adler (Diss. 
Phil. Vind. x, pp. 88-89). Wyttenbach contended that 
κε either nothing or no great part ”’ had perished. 


2 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


finished, but even more surely from the nature of 
the text in the opening sentences. 

2. In the dialogue as it stands the first speaker is 
Sulla. His chief function is to recount the myth which 
he mentions in the first extant words and which 
occupies the final fifth of the work ; but he interrupts 
the dialogue proper at 929 E—930 a to ask whether 
a certain difficulty was treated in the discussion which 
Lucius is reporting. He is a Carthaginian (cf. 942 c), 
presumably the Sextius Sulla cited by Plutarch in 
his Romulus, chap. 15 (26 c), and the same as the 
Carthaginian Sulla who gave a dinner for Plutarch 
in Rome (Quaest. Conviv. 727 B). He is probably the 
Sulla who appears as the interlocutor of Fundanus 
in the De Cohibenda Ira (note 6, 453 a) but probably 
not the same as the Sulla of Quaest. Conviv. 636 A 
(ὁ ἑταῖρος) and 650 a (one of tov συνήθων). 

The second speaker, at once the narrator of the 
whole conversation and the leader of the dialogue 


@ Those who have defended ὁ μὲν οὖν Σύλλας ᾿ ταῦτ᾽ ᾿ εἶπε 
“τῷ γ᾽ ἐμῷ μύθῳ προσήκει κτλ. as a possible opening appar- 
ently were unaware that the reading of E is ᾿᾽Οαυνοσυλλας 
ταῦτα εἶπε. τῷ yap ἐμῷ μύθῳ προσήκει κτλ. and that B’s ὁ μὲν 
οὖν Σύλλας is in all probability a conjecture made by the 
scribe of that ms. This being so, it is unjustifiable to “ἡ emend”’ 
the yap of τῷ yap ἐμῷ μύθῳ. the reading of both E and B ; and, 
if this yap stands, it is certain that our mss. do not preserve 
the beginning of the dialogue. The next sentence, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ 
δεῖ τι. . . προσανακρούσασθαι, πρῶτον ἡδέως av μοι δοκῶ 
πυθέσθαι, which Wyttenbach needlessly ‘* emended,”’ implies 
that some introduction of Sulla and his myth preceded the 
present beginning ; and 937 c(. . . Σύλλαν... οἷον ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς 
ἀκροατὴν γεγενημένον) Suggests what the nature of this intro- 
duction may have been. Even the tense of τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμέλλομεν 
implies some preceding reference to an earlier conversa- 
tion or a conversation itself interrupted by the arrival of 


Sulla. 
3 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


proper, is Lamprias,* who is also the narrator of the 
De Defectu Oraculorum (ef. 413 p), a dialogue in which 
he plays the leading réle.? In the De E apud Delphos, 
where Lamprias appears with Plutarch, Plutarch calls 
him brother (385 p); and he is frequently identified 
as Plutarch’s brother in the Quaest. Conviv. (cf. 635 a, 
726 p-E, 744 c [with 745 a], and possibly 626 a). He is 
characterized as a wit and a tease (726 D-E, 740 a), one 
accustomed to speak out in a loud voice (617 E-F), and 
capable of inventing a story as evidence to support 
his argument (De FE 386 a) ; he is an expert in culinary 
matters (643 Ε, 669 c, 670 Ε) and in the dance (747 B) 
and shrinks from appearing as a kill-joy to younger 
men (704 £). He is made to emphasize his close 
relations with a Cynic (De Defectu Oraculorum, 413 B) ; 
but he is no Cynic himself, and he is mortified to 
think that he might be supposed to have used his 
skill in argument to discredit any pious belief (435 ΕἸ. 
He is said to honour the school of Aristotle above that 
of Epicurus (Quaest. Conviv. 635 a-B); but he does 
not hesitate to disagree with Aristotle in the De 
Defectu Oraculorum (424 c ff.) and to espouse against 
him the doctrine of the Academy (430 FE ff.). In the 
De Facie he is a vehement critic of Stoic doctrine and 
a supporter of the Academic position (cf. 922 F). 
Lamprias bore the name of his grandfather ; but this 


@ His name is not mentioned until 937 p. There at the 
beginning of a section which serves as the transition from 
the main or “ scientific ’’ part of the dialogue to the myth 
Theon calls Lamprias by name, as Sulla does also at the 
beginning of his myth (940 F) and at the end of it (945 p). It 
is probable that in the lost beginning of the work Lamprias 
was similarly identified. 

> Of. Flacelitre, Plutarque ; Sur la Disparition des Ora- 
cles (Paris, 1947), pp. 19-22. 


+ 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


does not prove, as has sometimes been asserted, that 
he was older than his brothers, Plutarch and Timon. 
De Defectu Oraculorum, 431 c-p, has been thought to 
show that he was a priest of the oracle in Lebadeia,? 
though this is not a necessary implication of that 
passage ; and a Delphic inscription proves him to 
have been an archon at Delphi towards the end of 
Trajan’s reign or in the beginning of Hadrian’s.? 

Apollonides, the third speaker, is at once identified 
as expert in geometry (920 Fr), and Lamprias indicates 
that the scope and limitations of his specialty coin- 
cide with those of Hipparchus, the great astronomer 
(921 p, cf. 925 a). He puts forward objections to 
Lamprias’s explanation of the “face ᾿᾿ based upon 
astronomical terminology and calculations (933 F, 
935 p-E). An Apollonides appears at Quaest. Conviv. 
650 Ε along with Sulla; but he is called ὁ τακτικὸς 
᾿Απολλωνίδης, and there is no compelling reason to 
identify the two. Prickard may well be right in 
saying that the name Apollonides here was used by 
Plutarch to mean “ one of the clan of Apollonius,” 
1.6. a mathematician who, like Apollonius,? is in- 
terested in astronomical theory. 


* Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii, p. 189, n. 3; Flaceliére, op. cit. 
p- 251, n. 233: Ziegler, Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 10. 

® Dittenberger, S.I.G. ii. 868 c, n. 6; Stein, R.F#. xii. 1. 
586, s.v. Λαμπρίας 4. 

¢ Ziegler (Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 34) says that the 
sentence at 927 B, οὐ yap ἐν στρατοπέδῳ τακτικῶν ὄφελος KTA., 
is spoken ‘ obviously with reference to the interlocutor 
Apollonides ” ; but this is pretty obviously not true. Lam- 
prias is not here speaking in answer to Apollonides; and 
his subsequent words, οὐδὲ κηπουρῶν οὐδ᾽ οἰκοδόμων, certainly 
have reference to none of the present company. These are 
in fact stock examples of the argument from design. 

4 Apollonius of Perga ; cf. Hultsch, R.Z. ii. 151-160. 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Certainly Aristotle, who puts forward the orthodox 
Peripatetic theory of the heavenly bodies (928 & ff.), 
is only a name chosen by Plutarch to signify the 
school that he represents (cf. 920 F), even as the 
representative Epicurean in De Sera Numine Vindicta 
is called Epicurus.* 

The Stoic position is represented by Pharnaces. 
This name was borne by the son of Mithridates, of 
whom Plutarch tells in the Lives of Pompey and 
Caesar, as well as by several notable Persians men- 
tioned by Herodotus and Thucydides ὃ ; and Plutarch 
probably chose it for his Stoic because of its Asiatic 
sound. ° 

After the réle of Lamprias the largest in the dia- 
logue proper is that of Lucius, who is probably the 
same as “ Lucius, the pupil of Moderatus the Pytha- 
gorean, from Etruria,” a guest at the dinner which 
Sulla gave for Plutarch in Rome (Quaest. Conviv. viii. 
7-8 [727 B ff., 728 p ff.]).¢ Early in the dialogue (921 F) 
Lamprias turns to Lucius for aid ; he seems to think 
it appropriate that Lucius should set forth the strict 
‘““ demonstration ” of the Academic theory concerning 


« There is no reason to change ’Ezixoupos of the mss. in 
548 a to ’Emxovpecos, aS Fabricius did. ‘‘ Aristotle ’’ here 
supports “‘ Epicurus ”’ there. 

ὃ There was also a city in Pontus named Pharnaceia 
(Lucullus, 17 [502 Ὁ}. 

¢ Hirzel (Der Dialog, ii, p. 186, n. 4) says that Pharnaces 
is certainly a former slave, one who had shared the fate 
and sentiments of Epictetus. This, of course, is the merest 
fancy ; not all Asiatics, not even all in Rome at this time, 
had been slaves. For Athenians named Pharnaces ef. 1.G. 
112. 1039. 84 and 202. 55. 

4 Another Lucius, the son of Florus, appears in Quaest. 
Conviv. vii. 4 [702 F]); ef. Ziegler, Plutarchos von Chairo- 
neia, 55. 


6 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


the moon (cf. 928 p-£) ; and in fact the statement and 
defence of this position are shared by the two of them. 

Theon, whom Lamprias asks to identify a quotation 
(923 r) and whom he later teases for admiring Aris- 
tarchus to the neglect of Crates (938 p), is recognized 
as the literary authority in the group (cf. 931 E, 940 a). 
He is probably to be identified with Θέων ὁ γραμμα- 
τικός, who was a guest at Sulla’s dinner along with 
Lucius (Quaest. Conviv. 728 ΕἾ and who also dined 
with Plutarch at the house of Mestrius Florus (Quaest. 
Conviv. 626 £).” In the De Facie his chief contribution 
is a speech (937 p—938 c) which he makes after the 
main part of the dialogue has been concluded and 
which Lamprias praises as a kind of relaxation after 
the seriousness of the scientific discussion. 

The last of the persons present is Menelaus the 
mathematician. Lucius addresses him directly once 
(930 a), but Menelaus makes no reply and neither 
speaks nor is spoken to elsewhere in the dialogue as 
we have it. He is not mentioned anywhere else by 
Plutarch either ; but he is probably meant to be the 
Menelaus of Alexandria whom Ptolemy once calls 

α Tt is Lucius who demands that the Stoic theory should 
not be passed over without refutation (921 F). It is he who 
replies when Pharnaces complains of Lamprias’s violent 
treatment of the Stoics (922 Fr). His speeches extend from 
922 ¥ to 923 Fr, where Lamprias takes over to give him time 
to collect his thoughts, from 928 F to 929 £, from 930 a to 
931 c, and from 931 ἢ to 933 E. 

ὃ This Theon, whose home was Egypt (ef. 939 c-p), is 
certainly not the same as Θέων ὁ ἑταῖρος (Quaest. Conviv. 
620 a, De E, 386 9). who is probably the Theon of De Pythiae 
Oraculis, Non Posse Suaviter Vivi, and Quaest. Conviv. 
667 a and 726 a ff. 

¢ Unless the plural ὑμῖν used twice by Lamprias at 939 c-p 
is meant to include Menelaus as well as Theon ; cf. note a on 
p. 170 infra. 

7 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ὁ γεωμέτρης and twice cites for astronomical observa- 
tions which he made at Rome in the first year of 
Trajan (a.p. 98).¢ 

3. From 937 c-p it follows that the interlocutors 
have hitherto been promenading as they talked and 
that now they sit down upon the steps, seats, or 
benches (ἐπὶ τῶν βάθρων) and remain seated to the 
end. No other indication of the scene or location is 
given in the work as we have it. It had generally 
been assumed that the dialogue was meant to take 
place in Chaeronea ὃ ; but nothing in the text requires 
this, and F. H. Sandbach has adduced strong argu- 
ments for believing that the dramatic location is 
Rome or the vicinity of Rome.’ The persons in the 
dialogue furnish one of these arguments. Apol- 
lonides, Aristotle, and Pharnaces occur nowhere else 
in Plutarch’s writings and are probably all fictitious 


* Ptolemy, Syntawvis, vii. 3 (ii, p. 30. 18 ff. and p. 33. 3 ff. 
[Heiberg]); cf. Orinsky, s.n. ““ Menelaos” 16 in Pauly- 
Wissowa, R.E. xv. 1. 834 f. 

» Of. Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii, p. 184, n. 1, who discusses and 
rejects the suggestion that the scene is Delphi. Raingeard 
in his note on 939 c (p. 129 of his commentary) says that 
ὥσπερ ἄνω περὶ Θήβας there would allow the inference that the 
speakers are on the coast of Egypt. No such inference is 
justified by this phrase, of course; in fact, the preceding 
ὕλην δὲ Kai καρποὺς αὐτοῦ (or αὐτόθι, as Raingeard conjectures) 
μὲν ὄμβροι τρέφουσιν and the subsequent παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ev Αἰγύπτῳ 
(939 p 1) show that the scene of the dialogue is not anywhere 
in Egypt. 

¢ F, H. Sandbach, ‘‘ The Date of the Eclipse in Plutarch’s 
De Facie,” Class. Quart. xxiii (1929), pp. 15-16; cf. Ziegler, 
Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 73-74. 1 am indebted to Mr. 
Sandbach for sending me, along with copies of his publica- 
tions, many of his unpublished opinions concerning points 
in the De Facie and copies of his correspondence with J. K 
Fotheringham occasioned by the publication of the article 
cited above. 


8 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


characters. Plutarch nowhere else mentions Mene- 
laus the mathematician either, but we know that 
Menelaus spent some time in Rome (see note a, 
p- 8). Sulla, Lucius, and Theon all appear together 
at a dinner given for Plutarch when he had returned 
to Rome after an interval of absence (Quaest. Conviv. 
viii. 7-8) ; -and none of these three is ever mentioned 
as being anywhere but in Rome or its vicinity (see 
§ 2, supra). Lamprias alone belongs to Plutarch’s 
circle at Chaeronea ; but it is by no means certain 
that he did not visit Rome as Plutarch did, though 
there seems to be no definite evidence either way.” 
The other argument for the dramatic location is 
connected with the question of the dramatic date 
of the dialogue. At 931 Ρ-Ὲ Lucius refers to a recent 
total solar eclipse, saying : “ if you will call to mind 
this conjunction recently which, beginning just after 
noonday, made ag stars shine out from many 
parts of the sky...” Ginzel® identified this 
eclipse with the one which occurred on 20 March 
A.D. 71, for he found that all other solar eclipses 
visible in Chaeronea during Plutarch’s lifetime fell 
too far short of totality to permit the appearance of 


* Lamprias at least pretends to be conversant with Latin 
(Quaest. Conviv. 726 & ff.). On Plutarch’s visits to Rome 
cf. oe. Plutarchos von C haironeia, 19-20. 

. δότε μοι, ταύτης ἔναγχος τῆς συνόδου μνησθέντες ἣ 

ΠΣ ἘΞ, ἄστρα πολλαχόθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ διέφηνεν εὐθὺς ἐκ με- 
vil ἀρξαμένη... 

inzel, Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mond- 

ade fiir das Lindergebiet der klassischen Altertums- 

wissenschaft (Berlin, 1899), pp. 202-204; cf. also Plates X 

and XI for the paths of solar eclipses during the first and 

second centuries a.p. The data for the eclipses of 75 and 83, 

infra, come from Ginzel’s tables, op. cit. p. 78 and pp. 110- 

ELE. 
9 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


stars. His conclusion was generally accepted @ until 
Sandbach ὃ pointed out that, since this eclipse 
reached its maximum phase at about 11 a.m. local 
solar time in Chaeronea,® Plutarch could not have 
referred to it as having begun after noonday. Ginzel 
had assumed that the place of observation was 
Chaeronea ; Sandbach, having recognized that this 
assumption is unwarranted, was able to consider two 
other eclipses, that of 5 January a.p. 75 and that of 
27 December a.p. 83. The latter was total at Alex- 
andria shortly before 15 hours. The former was 
total in Carthage a little after 15 hours and in the 
latitude of Rome on the eastern side of the Adriatic 
at about 15 hours, 20 minutes; at Rome itself the 
maximum obscuration was 11-5 digits, so that, since 
according to Fotheringham @ stars other than Venus 
have been visible where the solar obscuration was 
10-7 digits, it is perfectly possible that some stars 

@ Struyck (cited by Ginzel, op. cit. p. 203) appears to have 
come to this conclusion before Ginzel ; and Ginzel’s identifica- 
tion was accepted by M. Adler (Zwei Beitradge zum plutar- 
chischen Dialog, De Facie [Nikolsburg, 1910], p. 4) and by 
Fotheringham as cited by A. O. Prickard (Plutarch on the 
Face of the Moon [1911], p. 75, and Plutarch, Select Essays, 
ii, p. 253). Hirzel (Der Dialog, ii, p. 182, n. 1), following 
Volkmann, does not even mention the eclipses of 59, 71, 
and 75, which Ginzel held to be the only ones worthy of 
consideration. 

> Op. cit. in note ¢, p. 8 supra. 

¢ 10r, 58™, 4 according to Ginzel (op. cit. p. 204): 11 τι 
4™, 1 according to Fotheringham as quoted by Prickard 
(Plutarch, Select Essays, ii, p. 253). 

4 Historical Eclipses (1921), cited by Fotheringham in a 
letter to Sandbach (22 January 1929); in this letter Fother- 
ingham states that “‘ a certain number of stars were visible 
at Rome in 75.᾽ Cf. Ginzel, op. cit. p. 14: “ Bei den zen- 
tralen Sonnenfinsternissen . . . einzelne Sterne treten mitunter 
hervor, bevor die Phase 11 zéllig geworden ist.” 


10 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


would have been seen at Rome about 3.20 p.m. local 
solar time on 5 January a.p. 75. This eclipse of 
A.D. 75 as seen in Rome certainly fits the conditions 
of Lucius’ statement better than does the one of 
A.D. 71 as seen in Chaeronea, even though it was 
rather late to be described as beginning just after 
noonday.* It must be emphasized that there is no 
reason to assume that Plutarch himself saw the 
eclipse to which Lucius refers. He had undoubtedly 
heard that it had been seen in or near Rome; he 
almost certainly had seen the eclipse of a.p. 71 in 
Chaeronea and may have seen that of a.p. 83 in 
Alexandria ὃ ; and what he had seen during one or 
both of these eclipses he may very well have applied 
to the eclipse of a.p. 75, which he had not seen. We 


* Its “ beginning,” which would have been at approxi- 
mately 13.50 hours, could not have been observed with the 
naked eye; but Plutarch was capable of calculating it 
roughly. In any case, whether the συνόδου... 7... ἀρξαμένη 
is to be taken strictly or in the sense of the time when dark- 
ness began, μεσημβρία, as Sandbach has said, is an extended 
period of time and not an astronomical moment ; and Lucius 
means that the conjunction began just after noonday was over. 

> We do not know when Plutarch visited Alexandria. In 
Quaest. Conviv. v. 5 (678 c ff.) his grandfather is present at 
a banquet given for him after his return from Alexandria. 
Sandbach (loc. cit.) thinks that this could have been after 83; 
but, whether this is so or not, we do not know whether there 
may not have been more visits to Alexandria than this one. 

ὁ If 932 B(. . . περιφαίνεταί τις αὐγὴ περὶ τὴν ἴτυν. .. 
means, as has sometimes been supposed, that Plutarch had 
seen the corona, he must have had this experience in 71 or 83. 
No one in or near Rome would have seen it in 75. I doubt 
that these words apply to the corona at all, however, for the 
subsequent οὐκ ἐῶσα βαθεῖαν γενέσθαι τὴν σκιὰν καὶ ἄκρατον 
would be a remarkably tame way of describing that spectacle. 
If the passage refers to any observed phenomenon, it is more 
likely to have reference to an annular eclipse. 


11 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


may then conclude that the dramatic date of the 
dialogue is later than a.p. 75, but how much later it 
is remains uncertain despite Lucius’ reference to the 
eclipse as “‘recent.”’ The word which he uses, ἔναγχος, 
like the English “ recent,”’ has a meaning relative 
to its context, and in the case of anything so unusual 
as a total solar eclipse might refer to an event that had 
taken place at any time within a decade or more ; it 
seems in this passage not to be used of the immediate 
past, for Lucius expressly reckons with the possibility 
that his audience may not recall “ the recent con- 
junction ᾿᾿ and may have to fall back upon literary 
evidence for the impression made by a total solar 
eclipse.t The attempts to find a historical refer- 
ence in 945 B which would help to fix the date of the 
dialogue are quite perverse ὃ ; and we are restricted 
by the evidence at present available to the conclu- 
sion that the conversation was meant to have taken 
place in or about Rome some time—and perhaps 
quite a long time—after a.p. 75. 

So much for the dramatic date. There is no reason 


4931 πε: εἰ δὲ μή, Θέων ἡμῖν (tov) Μίμνερμον ἐπάξει κτλ. 
Of course, this is primarily a literary device to excuse the 
introduction of the literary references; but it shows that 
Plutarch does not expect his readers to remember what a 
total solar eclipse is like. 

» Hirzel (Der Dialog, ii, Ὁ. 182, n. 1) excised Τυφών in 945 B 
(Τιτυοὶ δὲ καὶ Tuddves 6 τε Δελφοὺς κατασχὼν καὶ συνταράξας 
τὸ χρηστήριον ὕβρει καὶ βίᾳ Tuday ἐξ ἐκείνων κτλ.). took ὁ... 
συνταράξας... βίᾳ as a reference to Nero, and concluded - 
that Plutarch must have written this after the devastation of 
Delphi and before the restoration of the oracle. Adler (Zwei 
Beitrdge, etc. [see note a, p. 10], pp. 5-7) defended the text 
of the mss., which he interpreted to mean ‘‘ demons of the 
nature of Tityus and Typho and among these especially the 
Typhon who, etc.,’’ and followed Pomtow (Rhein. Mus. li 
[1896], pp. 377 ff.), who showed that the extinction of the 


12 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


at all for Hirzel’s assertion ὦ that this and the date 
of composition coincide. Certain striking similarities 
between the De Facie and the De Defectu Oraculorum 
have often been observed, but from these can be 
drawn equally cogent—and equally hypothetical— 
arguments for the priority of either to the other ὃ ; 


Delphic oracle during the time from Nero to Hadrian was 
pure invention and who took Τυφών in De Facie, 945 B, as a 
reference to the conflagration in 83 B.c. Adler then, assuming 
that after the ceremonious restoration of the temple in a.p. 84 
Plutarch would not remind his readers of its devastation, 
concluded that the dialogue must have been written before 
A.D. 84. This argument was criticized by K. Mras (Zeitschrift 
fiir die ésterreichischen Gymnasien, ἴχν [1914], p. 187), who 
in turn deleted Tuddves from the text and read Τιτυοὶ δὲ καὶ 
ὁ Τυφὼν ὁ Δελφούς. .. Bia κτλ. ‘This violent alteration is 
even less justifiable than Hirzel’s excision of Τυφών, with 
which it shares the fault of producing the hiatus βίᾳ ἐξ ; but 
the text of the mss. is impossible despite Adler, for (a) one 
does not say in any language “* such creatures as Tityus and 
Typho and in particular Typho . . ..᾿ (6) nowhere else is 
Typho himself said to have done the deed here ascribed to 
him, and (6) a reference to the conflagration is at least as 
improbable as the supposed reference to Nero. Kaltwasser’s 
change of Τυφών to Πύθων, on the other hand, is practically 
certain. Confusion of 7 and τ and of 6 and ¢ is easy and 
common, and πύθων coming after τυφῶνες would very easily 
be assimilated to it. Moreover, in De Defectu Oraculorum, 
421 c, τὰ περὶ ΠΤύθωνα are included among δαιμόνων πάθη along 
with τὰ Τυφωνικά and τὰ Τιτανικά. In 414 a-p the oracle at 
Delphi is said to have been long deserted in what is repre- 
sented as “‘ ancient times’’; and, if it is denied that the 
beast (which is not here named but is certainly Python !) was 
the cause, that is done in order to ascribe the cause to δαίμονες. 
Finally, Πύθων and Titvds are named together by Plutarch in 
Pelopidas, 16 (286 c) as they are by Strabo (ix. 3. 12 [ee. 
422-423]) and Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, i. 4. 1. 3-5 [22-23]). 

* Der Dialog, ii, p. 184, n. 1. 

Ὁ M. Adler (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, pp. 115-116) contends 
that in the De Defectu Plutarch excerpts the De Facie; but 
see Raingeard, p. xxviii of his edition of De Facie. 


13 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


and, since in any case the date of the De Defectu is 
uncertain,* the relative chronology of the two if 
established would not determine the date of the 
De Facie. 

4. The structure of the De Face is complicated. 
The whole of the work is narrated by Lamprias who 
speaks in the first person and quotes those who took 
part in the conversation, including himself, some 
few times in indirect discourse (e.g. 933 F) but for the 
most part directly. The last part of his narration 
(chaps. 26-30 [940 r—945 p] consists entirely of Sulla’s 
myth given in Sulla’s own words ; this myth, Sulla 
himself says, is a story told to him by an unnamed 
stranger, whom he quotes first indirectly and then 
(942 p ff.) directly to the end. The second or eschato- 
logical part of the myth the stranger had told Sulla 
that he had himself heard from “ the chamberlains 
and servitors of Cronus ”’ (cf. 945 p). Hearing it from 
Lamprias now, the reader has this part at fourth hand 
and the geographical introduction of the stranger at 
third hand.? 

From 937 ὁ it appears that Sulla had promised to 
tell his myth in return for an account of what had 
been said in an earlier discussion about the nature 
of the face which appears in the moon. Such a com- 
pact may have been expressly made in the beginning 
of the dialogue which is lost, where Sulla may have 
come upon the company already engaged in reviewing 
that earlier discussion (see note a, p. 3). So much 
is no more than conjecture. It is certain, however, 

* Ziegler, Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 76, gives “ about 
100’ as the date; but cf. Flaceliere, Plutarque: Sur la 
Disparition des Oracles, note 4 and pp. 13-17. 

> Cf. Plato’s Parmenides and Shorey, What Plato Said, 
p. 287. 


14 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


that most of what Lamprias narrates from chapter 2 
through chapter 23 is a conversation which is itself 
represented as containing a résumé or report of what 
was said at an earlier conversation. This the begin- 
ning of chapter 24 (937 c) states explicitly : ἡμεῖς μὲν 
οὖν, ἔφην, ὅσα μὴ διαπέφευγε τὴν μνήμην τῶν ἐκεῖ λεχ- 
θέντων ἀπηγγέλκαμεν, and the ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι at the 
end of chapter 2 (920 F) implies that what Lamprias 
has hitherto said in that chapter had been used as an 
argument in the earlier discussion. The leader of 
that discussion, which is referred to as a διατριβή," 
was not Lamprias or Lucius, who here recapitulate 
it,2? but someone to whom Lamprias, Lucius, and 
Sulla refer as “ our comrade ” and who probably is 
meant to be Plutarch himself.° Lamprias and Lucius 
are, of course, presumed to have been present at that 
discussion with their ““ comrade ἡ and Sulla to have 
been absent from it.¢ Of the others, Apollonides 
certainly was not present,’ nor was Theon/ ; Phar- 


α By Lucius at 929 B: ὁ μὲν οὖν ἑταῖρος ev τῇ διατριβῇ 
τοῦτο. .. ἀποδεικνὺς... ηὐδοκίμησεν. 

» Of. besides 937 c, 920 r, and 929 Β, which have already 
been cited, especially 921 F, 930 a, 932 Ὁ, 933 c. 

¢ Of. 921 τ΄, 929 8, 929 F, and see note a on p. 48 infra. 

4 The logie of the situation demands this; but it is also 
implied by Sulla’s question at 929 τ, 

6 This is implied by his question in 920 Fr and confirmed 
by that in 921 B: ἀλλὰ πῇ τὸν ἔλεγχον αὐτῷ προσῆγες; (in this 
latter passage Pohlenz [B.P.W. xxxii, 1912, p. 649] argued 
for retention of the mss. reading, προσῆγε, understanding 
as subject 6 ἑταῖρος, who he assumes was mentioned in the 
lost beginning of the dialogue; but surely this sentence 
is too far from even such a hypothetical antecedent, and 
Adler’s προσῆγες is an obvious and highly probable correc- 
tion). 

f This is certainly implied by his interchange with Lucius 
in 932 D-E£. 


15 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


naces probably was not”; and concerning Aristotle 
and Menelaus the text as we have it allows no clear 
inference to be drawn.” What these men other than 
Lamprias and Lucius say in chapters 2-23 is not, then, 
part of the report of that earlier discussion ἢ but 
neither is all that Lucius says, for in several places 
his remarks or arguments are expressly declared to 
be his own contribution.© That earlier discussion 
cannot, however, be identified with any that Plutarch 


α This is the most reasonable inference to be drawn from 
921 r, where Lucius requests that Pharnaces be given some 
consideration, and from Pharnaces’ comment in 922 F upon 
the attack of Lamprias. Nevertheless, Pharnaces’ words in 
the latter passage, ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἐξάξεσθε τήμερον κτλ., are 
open to the interpretation that he had been present at the 
earlier discussion and had there been drawn out by the 
Academic gambit. 

ὃ Lucius’s one remark to Menelaus (930 a), αἰσχύνομαι... 
σοῦ παρόντος KrA., seems to imply that the latter had not been 
present at the earlier discussion; but this is not decisive, 
especially in view of the fact that Menelaus makes no reply. 
Aristotle’s silence when Lamprias addresses him in 920 F 
might be taken to mean that he had heard this before ; and 

. πρὸς Κλέαρχον, ὦ ᾿Αριστότελες, . . . ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι τὸν 
ὑμέτερον could be interpreted as a reminder, although what 
follows, ὑμέτερος yap ἁνὴρ KrA., sounds as if this were some- 
thing new. In 929 Β Lucius in a speech addressed especially 
to Aristotle refers to what “ἡ our comrade ”’ said ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ 
and adds that he will not repeat what he learned zap’ ὑμῶν 
ἢ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, which might be taken to imply that Aristotle too 
had attended the διατριβή in question, although it might have 
a more general meaning. 

¢ Cf. Lamprias’s comment, ody οὕτως δ᾽ ὁ ἑταῖρος judy, in 
921 τ and his καλῷ λόγῳ καλὴν ἀναλογίαν προσέθηκας" οὐ yap 
ἀποστερητέον σε τῶν ἰδίων (931 Ὁ). The latter marks the last 
sentence of Lucius’s preceding speech (δότε δή μοι γεωμετρικῶς 
εἰπεῖν κτλ.) as his own, while Lucius’s own subsequent state- 
ment (οὐκοῦν καὶ δεύτερον ἀναλογίᾳ προσχρητέον) makes the 
same claim for what follows. In 933 c (παρίημι 2) 
ἐλέχθη) and possibly in 929 B (ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα μὲν οὐκ ἐρῶ κτλ. 


16 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


may have had with his friends or with any lecture 
that he may have given; it is primarily a literary 
fiction, part of the structure of the dialogue for which 
it provides a specious motivation. 

The recapitulation of this fictitious discussion along 
with the incidental arguments provoked by it contains 
all that Plutarch would consider to be “ scientific ”’ 
in the dialogue. At its conclusion Lamprias is ready 
for Sulla’s myth (chap. 24 init. [937 c-p]) ; but before 
Sulla can begin to speak Theon raises the question 
of the habitability of the moon, contending that, 
if it is not habitable, there can be no reason for it to 
exist with the nature or composition that according 
to Lamprias and Lucius it does have.* Lamprias calls 
Theon’s speech a kind of relaxation after the serious- 
ness of the preceding discussion. In fact, however, 
Theon has raised the metaphysical problem of the 
final cause ; and to this Lamprias replies at length 
(chap. 25). He argues first that the moon, con- 
stituted as he contends it is, need not, even if unin- 
habitable, be without a purpose in the universe 
(938 c-F), and secondly that, even if uninhabitable 
by corporeal human beings, it may still be inhabited 
by living beings of an entirely different kind to whom 
the moon may justly appear to be the only real earth 
and our earth the slime and dregs of the universe, 
uninhabitable by creatures that have warmth and 
breath and motion. Here Sulla checks Lamprias 
(chap. 26 inet. [940 F]) lest the latter encroach upon 
his myth ; and Lamprias was upon the very threshold 
[see note 6 swpra]) Lucius indicates that he is not giving a 
full account of the earlier discussion. 

« Cf. 937 Ὁ: . -. εἰ δυνατὸν ἐκεῖ κατοικεῖν. εἰ yap od δυνατόν, 
ἄλογον καὶ τὸ γῆν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην: δόξει γὰρ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀλλὰ 
μάτην γεγονέναι κτλ. 

17 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


of it, for the myth, as it turns out, teaches that the 
moon is inhabited by souls that have left their bodies 
after death on earth or have not yet been incorporated 
by birth into terrestrial bodies. So the episode con- 
sisting of Theon’s speech and Lamprias’s reply (chaps. 
24-25) is not merely a formal literary device. It is, 
to be sure, a transition from the scientific part of the 
dialogue, in which it is argued that the lunar pheno- 
mena imply the earth-like constitution of the moon, 
to the concluding myth in which the purpose of such 
a moon in the universe is imaginatively portrayed ; 
but this “ transitional episode ἡ raises the philo- 
sophical question, without the answer to which the 
strictly astronomical conclusion could to a Platonist 
or Aristotelian be no complete or satisfactory explana- 
tion, and itself contains the metaphysical answer, of 
which the myth is, despite all its intrinsic interest, 
essentially a poetical embellishment. When this 
‘transition ὁ is properly attended to, there can be 
no question about. the integral unity of the whole 
dialogue or any doubt that the purpose of the whole 
is to establish and defend the position that the moon 
is entirely earthy in its constitution and that on this 
hypothesis alone can the astronomical phenomena 
and the existence of the moon itself be accounted 
for.? 

5. The main part of the dialogue is of extraordinary 
interest for the history of astronomy, cosmology, 
geography, and catoptrics ; and this aspect of the 
work deserves more attention than it has usually 
received.’ It is not a technical scientific treatise and 


2 Cf. M. Pohlenz, Gétt. Gel. Anz. clxxx [1918], p. 323. 

» J. O. Thomson, History of Ancient Geography (Cam- 
bridge, 1948), pp. 330 f., gives a brief outline of this part of 
18 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


is not to be judged as if it were meant to be such ; 
but it is all the more significant that in a literary work 
intended for an educated but non-technical audience 
towards the end of the first century a.p. Hipparchus 
and Aristarchus of Samos are familiarly cited and 
a technical work of the latter is quoted verbatim, the 
laws of reflection are debated, the doctrine of natural 
motion to the universal centre is rejected, and stress 
is laid upon the cosmological importance of the 
velocity of heavenly bodies.” 


the work and cites Duhem’s and Humboldt’s praise of it. 
A. O. Prickard has some general remarks on the subject 
in the introductions to his two translations of the dialogue 
(Plutarch on the Face which appears on the Orb of the Moon 
[Winchester and London, 1911], pp. 9-15, and Plutarch : 
Select Essays, ii [Oxford, 1918], pp. 246-253). So has S. 
Giinther in his outline of the dialogue, Vergleichende Mond- 
und Erdkunde (Braunschweig, 1911), pp. 24-35, nearly half 
of which, however, is concerned with the myth. Hirzel in 
his treatment of the dialogue (Der Dialog [ Leipzig, 1895], ii, 
pp. 182-189) has little or nothing specific to say of its scientific 
aspect. ‘The most extensive monograph on the dialogue, 
Maximilian Adler’s Quibus Ex Fontibus Plutarchus Libellum 
“ De Facie in Orbe Iunae”’ Hauserit (Diss. Phil. Vind. x 
[1910], pp. 85-180), is concerned with the scientific passages 
only in so far as the author thinks that from them he can 
draw support for his thesis that Posidonius was Plutarch’s 
source for the dialogue. <A similar purpose limits the treat- 
ment of the work by K. Praechter in his Hierokles der Stoiker 
(Leipzig, 1901), p. 26 and pp. 109-120. Cf. also the notes 
of W. Norlind, Hranos, xxv (1927), pp. 265-277. 

* Itis interesting to compare the treatise of Ibn Al-Haitham 
(965-1039) which was translated from the Arabic by Carl 
Schoy under the title Abhandlung des Schaichs Ibn ‘Ali Al- 
Hasan Ibn Al-Hasan lbn Al-Haitham: Uber die Natur der 
Spuren <(Flecken), die man auf der Oberfliche des Mondes 
sieht (Hannover, 1925). Ibn Al-Haitham’s explanation of the 
‘ face ’’ is that the nature of the moon’s substance must differ 
from place to place, since the variation in illumination can be 
the result only of a difference in the power to absorb and 


19 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Most of the attention given to the dialogue, how- 
ever, has been attracted by the concluding myth.* 
This consists of two parts. The second and main part 
is the eschatological myth, which establishes the 
purpose of the moon in the cosmos by explaining her 
role in the “life-cycle” of souls and which the 
stranger told Sulla he had from the chamberlains of 
Cronus (942 p—945 p); the first is the introduction 


reflect light, and the spots are places of greater density and 
less power of absorption (pp. 20 ff. and 29-31). Though 
Schoy appears to have been unaware of it and Plutarch does 
not mention it, this explanation is ascribed to of ἀπὸ τῶν 
μαθηματικῶν in Aétius, ii. 30. 7 (Dow. Graeci, p. 362. 5-13). 
Ibn Al-Haitham rejects the theory that the spots are shadows 
cast by prominences on the moon, arguing that such shadows 
would not always have the same shape and position, as the 
spots do (pp. 14-17). Like Plutarch, however, he knows and 
refutes the notion that they are a reflection of the terrestrial 
ocean or any other terrestrial feature (pp. 1-2, 5-7 ; De Facie, 
chaps. 3-4); and he also adduces the colour of the moon in 
eclipse (pp. 31 f.; De Facie, 934 B-p). He proves impossible 
as well (pp. 4-5, cf. p. 2) an explanation unmentioned by 
Plutarch but recorded by Simplicius (De Caelo, p. 457. 25-30) 
that the spots are the result of vapours rising from below and 
obscuring the moon’s brilliance (¢f., however, for something 
similar, Milton, Paradise Lost, v. 415-420, and De Facie, 
922 p-c). Like Cleomedes (ii. 4. 103 [p. 186. 14-27 Ziegler]), 
Ibn Al-Haitham seems to hold that the moon as a reflecting 
convex mirror would have to appear as a single point of light 
(pp. 7 f. with Schoy’s note, p. 8, n. 1). 

α It was probably the myth as much as the more strictly 
astronomical part of the dialogue that caused Kepler to make 
his Latin translation and commentary of the De Facie, which 
he did shortly before his death. This is printed in volume 
viii of Joannis Kepleri Opera Omnia, ed. Dr. Ch. Frisch 
(Francofurti a. M., 1870). Cf. R. Schmertosch, “ Keppler 
zu Plutarchs Schrift ‘ Vom Gesicht im Monde,’ ” Phil.-Hist. 
Beitrége Curt Wachsmuth zum 60. Geburtstag iberreicht 
(Leipzig, 1897), pp. 52-55, and R. Pixis, Kepler als Geograph 
(Munich, 1899). 


20 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


to this myth or “ frame-story,”’ in which the stranger 
explained to Sulla how from the continent on the 
other side of the Atlantic he came to the Isle of 
Cronus, one of several that lie westwards of Britain, 
and thence, after having served thirty years, travelled 
to Carthage where he met Sulla (941 a—942 c). 

This geographical introduction has aroused the 
wildest speculations. Kepler was convinced that the 
trans-Atlantic continent was America, and he tried 
to identify the islands mentioned in the myth?; W. 
Christ in 1898 still could assert that Plutarch’s con- 
tinent is ““ obviously America ” and proves that about 
A.D. 100 sailors reached the North American coast 
via Iceland, Greenland, and Baffinland ®; and in 1909 
G. Mair argued that the source of this knowledge 
of America was reports of Carthaginian seafarers 
who had penetrated into the Gulf of Mexico, that 
the Isle of Cronus is Scandinavia, and that the 
northern geography of the myth derives from 
accounts of the voyages of Pytheas of Massilia.° Even 


2 Cf. notes 97, 98, 103, and 105 to Kepler’s translation 
(see note a, p. 20 supra) and note 2 to his Somnium sive Astrono- 
mia Lunaris. In Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Abrahami Ortelii 
(Antwerp, 1593), p. 5, this passage of Plutarch was used, 
apparently for the first time, to prove that the ancients knew 
the American continent. 

Ὁ Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, Dritte Auflage 
(1898), p. 662, n. 1. W. Schmid and O. Stéahlin in the sixth 
edition of this work (Zweiter Teil, Erste Halfte [1920], p. 498) 
suppress this note of Christ’s but write “‘ aus dem Festland 
jenseits des atlantischen Ozeans (Amerika ?).”’ 

¢ G. Mair, “ Pytheas’ Tanais und die Insel des Kronos in 
Plutarchs Schrift ‘ Das Gesicht im Monde’ ” (Jahresbericht 
des K.K. Staats-Gymnasiums in Marburg αἰ). 1909). A 
fair example of Mair’s argument is his identification (p. 18) 
of the κόλπος mentioned in 941 B with the Christiana-Fjord, 
although according to Plutarch it is in the trans-Atlantic 


21 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


before Mair had published his fantastic theory Ebner 
had conclusively demonstrated that Plutarch could 
not have referred to any real crossing of the Atlantic 
or any rumours of such a crossing, that by using the 
name Ogygia at the beginning (941 a-B) he had 
clearly indicated the purely mythical intention of 
his geography, and that this geographical setting is 
simply an imitation of Plato’s Atlantis in the spirit 
of Hecataeus’ story of the Hyperboreans, Theo- 
pompus’ Meropis, and the Sacred Records of Eu- 
hemerus.? The additional geographical particulars 
are the usual “ corroborative detail intended to give 


continent. Moreover, all of Plutarch’s islands lie to the West 
and North-West of Britain ! 

«Ἐπ Ebner, Geographische Hinweise und Ankldnge in 
Plutarchs Schrift, de facie in orbe lunae (Munich, 1906). 
A. von Humboldt had concluded long before that the geo- 
graphical frame is entirely mythical (Kvitische Untersu- 
chungen iiber die historische Entwicklung der geographischen 
Kenntnisse von der Neuen Welt [Berlin, 1836], pp. 174-185). 
H. von Arnim (“‘ Plutarch iiber Damonen und Mystik,” pp. 
37-47 [ Verhand. Kk. Akad. van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, 
Afd. Letterk., 1921]) contended that Plutarch’s source for 
chapter 26 was a “fantastic travel-romance’”’ that had 
nothing to do with philosophy or moon-demonology, but in 
which the demons of Cronus served the purpose of prophesy- 
ing to the hero about his future. W. Hamilton (Class. Quart. 
xxviii [1934], pp. 24 ff., cf. p. 24, n. 1),while citing as parallels 
to the geographical myth Hecataeus, Euhemerus, Theo- 
pompus, and the Abaris of Heraclides Ponticus (cf. also 
Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii, p. 187, n. 4), maintains that Plutarch 
wrote the whole of his myth in direct imitation of Plato’s story 
of Atlantis. Rohde (Der griechische Roman, 204-276=3rd 
edition [Leipzig, 1914], pp. 219-296) places Plutarch’s geo- 
graphical myth in its proper environment with the romances 
of Theopompus, Hecataeus, Euhemerus, Iambulus, Antonius 
Diogenes, and Marcellus. Cf. also H. Martin, Etudes sur le 
Timée de Platon (Paris, 1841), i, pp. 290-304, and J. O. 
Thomson, op. cit. (note 6, p. 18), pp. 237-238. 


22 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and un- 
convincing narrative.’ The theme of the sleeping 
Cronus may have been suggested to Plutarch by 
Demetrius of Tarsus, who in the De Defectu Oracu- 
lorum (419 E—420 a) is made to say that on an island 
near Britain Cronus is kept prisoner by the bonds of 
sleep and is guarded by Briareus and attended by 
Spirits who are his servitors. This Demetrius appears 
to have been an historical person who did travel to 
Britain, whence in the dialogue he is said to have 
recently returned ; and he may have told Plutarch 
some Celtic legend or superstition which the latter 
hellenized and wove into the fabric of his myth.? 
The discussion of the second part of the myth, the 
demonology and eschatology, has also been con- 
cerned mainly with the problem of Plutarch’s sources. 
Heinze attempted to prove that this myth had been 
put together out of material drawn from Xenocrates 
and from Posidonius and that in the resulting com- 
bination the parts that belong to those two authors 


@ For Demetrius cf. R. Flaceliere, Plutarque : Sur la Dis- 
parition des Oracles (Paris, 1947), pp. 26-28, and K. Ziegler, 
Plutarchos von Chaironeia (Stuttgart, 1949), 36. If Demetrius 
did hear a Celtic tale of a god or hero asleep on some western 
island, it would have been easy for him or Plutarch to identify 
the subject with Cronus (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, 169, 
and Pindar, Olympian, ii. 77 [70] ff.; see also note a on p. 182 
and note a on 942 a infra). Pohlenz’s notion (R.E. xi. 2013) 
that Posidonius, who was “ familiar with the northern world,”’ 
was the intermediary of this “ Kyffhiusermotiv ”’ has nothing 
to support it. Posidonius was the source of the Cronus-motif 
as well as of the whole geographical part of the myth accord- 
ing to M. Adler, op. cit. (note 6, p. 18), pp. 169-170, who 
has no trouble in showing that Schmertosch adduced no real 
_reason for designating Xenocrates as Plutarch’s source for 
this section; but Hamilton (loc. cit. [note a, p. 22]) has 
proved that Posidonius could not have been the source either. 


23 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


are distinguishable.* Adler vigorously attacked this 
thesis and argued that Posidonius was Plutarch’s 
source for the whole myth and for whatever there is 
in it that may have come ultimately from Xeno- 
crates ὃ; but ἢ. M. Jones 5 proved conclusively that 
neither Heinze’s conclusions nor Adler’s will bear 
scrutiny, that Posidonius could not have been the 
source, and that, while Plutarch combined various 
eschatological notions which were current and some 
of which were probably held in common by different 
philosophers, his myth is in the main an interpretation 
of Plato’s Timaeus. Later, against Karl Reinhardt’s 
attempt to trace the myth back to a hypothetical 
“solar eschatology ”’ of Posidonius, Jones re-estab- 
lished the Platonic character of Plutarch’s eschato- 
logy, psychology, and demonology here and the 
impossibility of taking Posidonius for the source.4 


@ Richard Heinze, Xenokrates (Leipzig, 1892), pp. 123 ff. 
M. Pohlenz, Vom Zorne Gottes (Gottingen, 1909), p. 133, 
n. 1, approved Heinze’s conclusion in general but differed 
with him in some particulars. 

ὃ Maximilian Adler, op. cit. (note 6, p. 18), pp. 166 ff. 
Adler’s dissertation was reviewed by Pohlenz in B.P.W. 
xxxii (1912), 648-654, and his thesis concerning the source 
of the myth criticized, ibid. 653. P. Capelle (De luna stellis 
lacteo orbe animarum sedibus [Halle, 1917], pp. 14-15) held 
that chapter 28 came from Posidonius’s account of the state 
of souls after death and chapters 29 and 30 from his supposed 
commentary on the 7imaeus. 

¢ The Platonism of Plutarch (Chicago Dissertation, 
Menasha, Wisconsin, 1916), pp. 48-56 and 58-60. 

4 K. Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie (Munich, 1926), 
pp. 313 ff. (cf. also F. Cumont, “‘ La Théologie solaire du paga- 
nisme romain,”? Mém. del’ Acad. des Inscriptions, xii [1909}) ; 
R. M. Jones, “ Posidonius and Solar Eschatology,” Class. Phil. 
xxvii (1932), pp. 113-135, especially pp. 116-131. P. Boyancé, 
Etudes sur le Songe de Scipion (Bordeaux and Paris, 1936), 
pp. 78-104, follows Jones in refuting Cumont and Reinhardt. 


24 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


Hamilton later contended even more positively that 
Plutarch took the 7zmaeus as the model for the whole 
of his myth in the De Facie and that, since the De 
Animae Procreatione in Timaeo shows that he regarded 
the Timaeus seriously, he must have intended the cor- 
responding portion of his myth in the De Facie to con- 
tain an equally serious exposition of his own beliefs 
concerning the nature and fate of the βου]. Soury in 
his extensive study of the myth, while emphasizing the 
possible influence of the mysteries, agrees in general 
with Hamilton that it is preponderantly Platonic.’ 

Anyone who without a preconceived thesis to 
defend reads the De Facie will recognize, I believe, 
that Plato was Plutarch’s inspiration throughout 
the dialogue but that Plutarch is himself the true 
author of the whole work and that, while there is in 
it a distillation of his wide and varied scientific and 
philosophical reading, he cannot possibly have com- 
posed it by copying out any source or combination 
of sources. I have tried in the exegetical notes to 
indicate the “ parallels ᾿᾿ which will help the reader 
to understand the dialogue itself by seeing its relation 

* W. Hamilton, Class. Quart. xxviii (1934), pp. 24-30. 
Hamilton expressly opposes the theory of von Arnim, who, 
in his “ἡ Plutarch iiber Dimonen und Mystik ” (see note a, 
p- 22), pp. 24-65, argues that Plutarch took the geographical 
myth and the eschatological myth from two different sources 
and the latter from an eclectic Platonist later than Antiochus. 
As to Hamilton’s notion of the seriousness with which 
Plutarch intended the myth, Ziegler is surely right in saying 
(Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 217) that Sulla’s final sentence, 
taken together with Lamprias’s remark in 920 B-c, shows that 
Plutarch had no intention of insisting upon the literal truth 
of the myth; in this attitude also he follows Plato: see 
note a on p. 223 imfra. 

ὃ G. Soury, Rev. Et. Gr. ΠῚ (1940), pp. 51-58, and La Dé- 
monologie de Plutarque (Paris, 1942), pp. 73-82 and 177-210. 


25 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


to the rest of ancient scientific and philosophical 
thought. Among these “ parallels ’’ some of the 
most striking are drawn from later writers, especially 
Neo-Platonists ; these I have mentioned not in order 
to insinuate that they show Plutarch’s direct influence 
upon those later writers, although many of them 
certainly were acquainted with him, but because 
they illuminate the meaning of the De Facie and at 
the same time indicate what may have been con- 
tained in some of the philosophical writings known 
to Plutarch and long since lost to us, and may help 
to cast some flicker of light upon that obscure and 
controversial problem, the prehistory of Neo- 
Platonism. 

6. The De Facie, which is No. 73 in the so-called 
Catalogue of Lamprias and No. 71 in the Planudean 
order, is apparently preserved in only two mss. of the 
Bibliotheque Nationale, Gree 1672 (saec. XIV) and 
1675 (saec. XV), conventionally called Parisinus E 
and Parisinus B respectively.* These have hitherto 
been supposed to be independent copies of a single 
archetype ὃ ; but recently G. R. Manton has put 


@ On the mss. of Plutarch generally cf. the references cited 
by M. Pohlenz, Plutarchi Moralia, i (Teubner, 1925), Prae- 
fatio, p. vi, n. 1, and pp. xxvi and xxviii f. on B and E 
respectively. 

ὃ Wyttenbach (Plutarchi Moralia [Oxford, 1795], p. xliv) 
says of B “ ut videtur, ex E, aut ejusdem exempli codice, ita 
descriptus ut antiquiores melioresque simul adhiberentur ; 
unde quaedam lacunae uberius etiam expletae, et plura menda 
sanata.”’” M. Treu, Zur Geschichte der Uberlieferung von 
Plutarchs Moralia, ii (Ohlau, 1881), pp. 5-7, argued that B 
derives from the same source as E, which B must have used 
later; and his conclusion was generally accepted by later 
editors. Raingeard’s more complicated stemma (p. xiv of 
his edition of the De Facie) is, in any case, entirely unjustified. 


26 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


forward strong arguments for thinking that B is a 
descendant of E through an intermediate manuscript, 
“a copy of E, which was worked over by a scholar 
who filled in lacunae and inserted conjectures of his 
own.” @ 

I have collated both manuscripts from photostats 
which were generously put at my disposal by Dr. 
William C. Helmbold:; and I have recorded under 
the usual symbols the variant readings of each of 
them, for I soon discovered that not only is Ber- 
nardakis’ report of the mss. untrustworthy, but that 
the same must be said of Raingeard’s in his recent 
edition of the dialogue, and that even Treu’s collation 
(see note 6, p. 26) is not free of errors. I have not 
recorded mere omissions or variations of accent or 
breathing, however, unless the sense is affected by 
them; and 1 have regularized crasis and elision 
without regard to the manuscripts or report of them, 


« ** The Manuscript Tradition of Plutarch Moralia 70-7,” 
Class. Quart. xliii (1949), pp. 97-104. Among the passages 
discussed by Manton where B has readings other than those 
of E are none from the De Facie, for the text of which Manton 
(op. cit. p. 99, n. 1) depended upon Treu’s collation supple- 
mented by Bernardakis’ list in vol. i of his edition, pp. | ff. ; 
but I have found no variant reading of B in this essay that 
would surely gainsay Manton’s hypothesis. Those which 
might suggest that B is not descended from E are the follow- 
ing: 927 Ε: τὸν -B for E’s correct ra before ἐμβριθῆ: 929 8: 
ἔχων δὲ -B, ἔχων δὲ τοῦτο -E for the correct ἑκὼν δὲ: 932 Ὁ: 
πεποιημένων -Β for E’s correct πεπεισμένων : 937 Ε : ἐπιφερο- 
μένη -B, φερομένη -E for the probable original ἀντιφερομένη : 
938 D: ἀναγινώσκων -B for E’s correct ἀναγινώσκοντος : 943 Ὁ: 
καταγινομένας -B for E’s correct καταδυομένας. Manton’s con- 
clusion has been rejected by K. Hubert (Rhein. Mus. xciii 
[1950], pp. 330-336), but Hubert’s defence of the indepen- 
dence of B and E has been counterattacked by Einarson and 
De Lacy (Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 103 and 106, with notes 
36 and 56). 


20 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


for they show no consistency in this matter.” In con- 
formity with the usage of Professor Babbitt and 
regardless of the manuscripts, I have printed the forms 
γίγνεσθαι, γιγνώσκειν, and οὐδείς, though the manu- 
scripts usually have γίνεσθαι, γινώσκειν, and οὐθείς ; 
but I have adopted the form δυεῖν throughout. I have 
tried to the best of my ability to assign emendations 
to those who first proposed them ; but for some which 
appear without ascription in all modern editions, and 
the author of which I have been unable to discover, 
I have had to be content with the unsatisfactory note, 
“editors.” For the suggestions said to be written in 
three different hands on the margins of the copy of 
the Aldine edition now in the Bibliotheque Natio- 
nale (Rés. J. 94), I have had to rely upon the report 


* For example, in 931 Ὁ they have τὰ αὐτὰ πάσχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ 
αὐτοῦ. . . ταὐτὰ (B, ταυτὰ -E) ποιεῖν ταὐτὸν. . . and occa- 
sionally of’ ὅπως and ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως, although they do not 
ordinarily elide the a of οἶδα and ἀλλά. Almost invariably 
both E and B have μὴ δὲ instead of μηδὲ or μηδ᾽. On these 
matters cf. 'T. Doehner, Quaestionum Plutarch. Particula 
Altera and Tertia (Meissen, 1858 and 1862), especially iii, 
p. 51, and ii, p. 35, n.**; and on the question of hiatus ef. 
Helmbold, Class. Phil. xxxiii (1938), pp. 244-245, and xlv 
(1949), pp. 64 f. with his references, and for a much stricter 
view Ziegler, Plutarchos von Chaironeia, 295-298. To 
‘“emend”’ for the sole purpose of eliminating hiatus is to 
take unwarranted liberty with the text; but, on the other 
hand, to introduce hiatus by emendation is certainly in- 
admissible. It should be observed, however, that in the 
De Facie, besides the exceptions to avoidance of hiatus listed 
by Ziegler (op. cit. 296-297), final at, ou, εἰς. and ov before an 
initial vowel may always be possible (cf. for ov 4.5. τοῦ ἰδίου 
ἀέρος in 944 a), ἄνω and κάτω are permissible before any word 
beginning with a vowel (cf. ἄνω ἔχειν and κάτω ἄνωθεν in 
924 c which guarantee ἄνω ἐστίν in 926 a), and other cases 
of hiatus which cannot reasonably be eliminated occasionally 
occur (6.9. χείλη εἰκόνας [921 c], τουτὶ εἴπω [935 D]). 


28 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


of Raingeard in the apparatus criticus of his edition 
(cf. pp. xvi f. of his Introduction)“; all of these I in- 
dicate without differentiation by the formula, “ Anon., 
Aldine, R.J. 94. Upon Raingeard’s report and 
those of Reiske, Wyttenbach, Hutten, and Bernarda- 
kis I have had to rely for the variant readings of 
the Aldine edition and of the edition of Xylander ; 
but the edition of Froben (Basiliensis, 1542), as well 
as those of Stephanus (1624), Reiske, Wyttenbach, 
Hutten, Diibner, Bernardakis, and Raingeard, and the 
translations of Xylander, Amyot, Kepler, Kaltwasser, 
the two translations of Prickard,? and that of por- 
tions of the essay by Heath,’ I have consulted and 
compared throughout. 

Those emendations which, so far as I know, are 
original with me are indicated by the initials H. C. 
Besides the editions, translations, and articles already 
mentioned in this Introduction, the chief aids to my 
study of the text have been the following : 


¢ P. Raingeard, Le ΠΕΡῚ TOY ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥ͂ de Plutarque, 
texte critique avec traduction et commentaire (Paris, 1935). 
Raingeard’s text is fantastically ‘“‘ conservative,’ reproducing 
E for the most part even where E gives impossible Greek ; 
and yet his report of the manuscripts is frequently erroneous 
either explicitly or by implication. The translation is worse 
even than the text; and the commentary, especially where 
it touches upon philosophical and scientific questions, is more 
often wrong than right, almost everywhere inadequate, and 
frequently absurd. 

> See note 6, p. 18. Prickard’s translation of 1911 was 
reviewed by W. R. Paton, Class. Rev. xxvi (1912), p. 269, and 
by L. C. Purser, Hermathena, xvi (1911), pp. 309-324, whose 
review is rather a series of notes and suggestions for almost 
two score passages in the essay. 

¢ Sir Thomas L. Heath, Greek Astronomy (London, 1932), 
pp. 166-180. 


29 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Apter, Maximinian: Diss. Phil. Vind. x (1910), pp. 
87 ff. (cf. note b, p. 18). 

Wiener Studien, xxxi (1909), pp. 305-309. 

“ Zwei Beitrige zum plutarchischen Dialog ἡ De 
Facie in Orbe Lunae,’”’ Jahreshericht des K.K. 
Staatsgymnasiums in Nikolsburg, 1909-1910 (Ni- 
kolsburg, 1910). 

Wiener Studien, xlii (1920-1921), pp. 163-164. 

Festschrift Moriz Winternitz (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 
298-302. 

ApeLtt, Orro: “ Zu Plutarch und Plato,” Jahres- 
bericht Gymnasium Carolo-Alexandrinum zu Jena, 
1904-1905 (Jena, 1905). 

“ Kritische Bemerkungen,” Jahresbericht . . . Jena, 
1905-1906 (Jena, 1906). 

Cuarzipakis, G. N.: Athena, xiii (1901), pp. 462- 
714. 

Coset, C. G.: Novae Lectiones (Leiden, 1858). 

Variae Lectiones (Leiden, 1878). 

Collectanea Critica (Leiden, 1878). 

Emperius, A.: Emperii Opuscula Philologica et His- 
torica . . . ed. F. G. Schneidewin (Gottingen, 
1847), pp. 287-295. 

Hartman, J. J.: De Plutarcho Scriptore et Philosopho 
(Leiden, 1916), pp. 557-563. 

Herwerpven, H. van: Lectiones Rheno-Trairectinae 
(Traj. ad Rhen., 1882). 

Mnemosyne, xxii (1894), pp. 330-337, and xxxvii 
(1909), pp. 202-223. 

Kronenberg, A. J.: Mnemosyne, lii (1924), pp. 60-112, 
and Ser. 111, x (1941), pp. 33-47. 

Kunze, R.: Rhein. Mus. lxiv (1909), pp. 635-636. 

Mapvia, J. N.: Adversaria Critica, I (Hauniae, 1871), 
pp- 664-666. 


30 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


Mras, K.: Zevischrift fiir die Gsterreich. Gymnasien, 
Ixv (1914), pp. 187-188. 
Naser, 5. A. : Mnemosyne, xxviii (1900), pp. 329-364. 
PapapasiLeIos, G. A.: Athena, x (1898), pp. 167-242. 
Pontenz, Max: Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 
xxxii (1912), pp. 648-654. 
Gétting. Gelehrte Anzeig. clxxx (1918), pp. 321-343. 
SanpgBacn, I’. H.: Proc. of the Cambridge Philological 
Soc., 1943. 
Haroitp CHERNISS 


ADDENDUM 


Since this Bibliography was compiled in February 
1953 some publications dealing with the De Facie 
have come to my attention which require a brief 
notice. 


Konrat Ziegler in Plutarch tiber Gott und Vorsehung, 
Démonen und Weissagung (Ziirich, Artemis-Verlag, 
1952) has written a brief summary of the essay (pp. 
42-45) and has translated the myth (940 r—9Q45 p) 
into German (pp. 268-278) with the addition of a few 
explanatory notes. He makes one noteworthy altera- 
tion in the text at 941 a-B: adopting τὸν δὲ Βριάρεων 
ἔχοντα φρουρόν, after which he puts a full stop, he re- 
moves the following words, τῶν τε νήσων... παρα- 
κάτω κεῖσθαι (7), from their position in the mss. and 
places them after κύκλῳ θάλαττα in 941 B three lines 
below. 

The question of the mss., which is touched upon in 
the Introduction § 6 supra, has been discussed, though 
without specific reference to the De Facie, by R. 

31 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Flaceliére in his edition and translation of the Ama- 
torius (Plutarque : Dialogue sur Vamour { Paris, “ Les 
Belles Lettres,” 1952], pp. 35-37) and in an article, 
‘La Tradition manuscrite des traités 70-77 de Plu- 
tarque,”’ Rev. Etudes Grecques, xv (1952), pp. 351-362. 
By a different route he reaches the same conclusion 
as did G. R. Manton, namely that B is derived from E, 
probably through an intermediate manuscript now 
lost. In Gnomon, xxv (1953), pp. 556-557 K. Hubert 
replied to Flaceliére’s arguments and again sought to 
establish the independence of B with respect to E. 


Flaceliére in his article entitled “ Plutarque et les 
éclipses de la lune ” (Rev. Etudes Anciennes, liii [1051], 
pp. 203-221) is primarily concerned with the interpre- 
tation of De Genio Socratis, 591 c, but in connection 
with this he discusses De Facie, 933 p-E and 942 D-E 
and argues that in the former of these two passages 
- Plutarch depends upon the calculations of Hipparchus 
(cf. my note in Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 145 referred 
to in note e on 933 & infra). 

G. Zuntz in Rhein. Mus. xcvi (1953), pp. 233-234 has 
proposed several emendations in the text of the 
essay : 

940 ©: He is right in assuming that Bernardakis’ 
ὑμεῖς is a misprint for ἡμεῖς of the Mss., but ὅσαπερ 
which he condemns and emends is, of course, correct ; 
he apparently misunderstood the construction, ὅσα- 
περ ἡμεῖς (scl. χρώμεθα) ἀέρι. 

042 π: After τίς δ᾽ οὗτός ἐστιν, he would add 
ζέφην: 6 6+), thus producing the same effect as did 
Reiske’s punctuation. Cf. on this sentence my note 
in Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 150-151. 


* Cf. Irigoin, Rev. de Philologie, xxviii (1954), pp. 117-119. 
32 


THE FACE ON THE MOON 


943 p: He would write τὸ ἄλογον καὶ [τὸ] παθη- 
τικόν on the strength of De Def. Orac. 417 B (p. 75. 
23 [Sieveking]). This would be possible but is un- 
necessary, since καὶ can here be taken as “ explica- 
tive.” 

944 c: He suggests Φερσεφόνης οὖδος ἀντιχθόνιος 
or Pepredovys οὖδος ἀντίχθονος, apparently unaware 
of von Arnim’s far more probable emendation (see 
notes d and e on p. 221 infra). His further supple- 
ment, τὰ δὲ (πρὸς Ta) ἐνταῦθα, is quite unnecessary. 

944 E: To ἔρωτι τῆς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκόνος he 
would add {τοῦ ἑνὸς) or {τοῦ νοητοῦ» or {τἀγαθοῦ» 
on the ground that the phrase as it stands is unintel- 
ligible. The following words, δι ἧς ἐπιλάμπει κτλ. 
themselves explain what Plutarch means (see note 
g on 944 Ε infra), and there is no excuse for any 
supplement at all. 

945 B: He rightly defends Kaltwasser’s alteration 
of Τυφὼν to Πύθων (see Introduction, p. 12, note ὁ 
supra). 

HC, 
November 1954 


To my great regret I have been unable to take 
account of Professor M. Pohlenz’s edition of this 
essay in Plutarcht Moralia, vol. v, Fasc. 3 (Leipzig, 
Teubner, 1955), since it became available only after 
this volume had already been paged and corrected 
for printing. 

H.C. 
February 1956 


VOL. XII e 33 


(920) ΠΕΡῚ TOY EM®AINOMENOY ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥ͂ 
ΤΩΙ KYKAQI ΤῊΣ ΣΕΛΉΝΗΣ 


~ > ΄ » ~ 
Β 1....06 Σύλλας ταῦτ᾽ εἶπε. “᾿ τῷ yap ἐμῷ" 
/ / > A / > > > > A \ 
μύθῳ προσήκει κἀκεῖθέν ἐστι: ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δεῖ τι πρὸς 
τὰς ἀνὰ χεῖρα ταύτας καὶ διὰ στόματος πᾶσι δόξας 
~ ~ / / 
περὶ τοῦ προσώπου τῆς σελήνης mpocavaKpov- 
~ ε / Μ “- / ᾽) 
σασθαι πρῶτον ἡδέως ἄν μοι δοκῶ πυθέσθαι. 
ce ul > 3 > / ᾽) ἣν ἘῈ ΤῊΝ \ ~ >’ / 
τί δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμέλλομεν ᾿᾿ εἶπον “ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν ταύταις 
>’ ς > 
ἀπορίας ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνας" ἀπωσθέντες; ὡς yap οἱ ἐν 
/ \ 
νοσήμασι χρονίοις πρὸς τὰ Kowa βοηθήματα Kat 
\ 
τὰς συνήθεις διαίτας ἀπειπόντες ἐπὶ καθαρμοὺς καὶ 
/ \ > / - 
περίαπτα καὶ ὀνείρους τρέπονται, οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον 
/ \ ¢ 
ἐν δυσθεωρήτοις καὶ ἀπόροις σκέψεσιν, ὅταν οἱ 
\ » Ws \ / / \ / 

C κοινοὶ καὶ ἔνδοξοι καὶ συνήθεις λόγοι μὴ πείθωσι, 
πειρᾶσθαι τῶν ἀτοπωτέρων καὶ μὴ καταφρονεῖν 
3 > > / > ~ e - \ ~ ~ \ 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπάδειν ἀτεχνῶς ἑαυτοῖς τὰ TOV παλαιῶν καὶ 

\ / > \ 3 / 
διὰ πάντων τἀληθὲς ἐξελέγχειν. 


1 E, Β ; περὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ σελήνη φαινομένου προσώπου--“᾿ Cata- 
logue of Lamprias ” (No. 75) : περὶ τοῦ ἐμφαινομένου κύκλου 
τῆς σελήνης -Folio 1 (verso) of Mare. 250 (Χ). 

2 Raingeard ; ᾿Οαυνοσυλλας ταῦτα εἶπε κτλ. -E 3 ‘O μὲν οὖν 
σύλλας ταῦτα εἶπε κτλ. -B; ‘O μὲν οὖν Σύλλας, “ἧ ταῦτα, εἶπε, 
“ τῷ γ᾽ ἐμῷ κτλ. -Wyttenbach, who for γὰρ ἐμῷ also suggested 
παρ᾽ ἐμοὶ. 

3 Wyttenbach (ἐκείνας -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94): τούτοις 
. . . eketwous -E, B. 


34 


CONCERNING THE FACE WHICH 
APPEARSSINY THE "ORB OF “ft HE MOON 


1. ... These were Sulla’s words.? “ For it con- 
cerns my story and that is its source ; but I think that 
I should first like to learn whether there is any need 
to put back for a fresh start ὃ to those opinions con- 
cerning the face of the moon which are current and 
on the lips of everyone.”” “‘ What else would you 
expect us to have done,’ I said,° “‘ since it was the 
difficulty in these opinions that drove us from our 
course upon those others? As people with chronic 
diseases when they have despaired of ordinary 
remedies and customary regimens turn to expiations 
and amulets and dreams, just so in obscure and per- 
plexing speculations, when the ordinary and repu- 
table and customary accounts are not persuasive, it is 
necessary to try those that are more out of the way 
and not scorn them but literally to chant over our- 
selves 4 the charms of the ancients and use every 
means to bring the truth to test. 


¢ Concerning the mutilated beginning of the dialogue see 
Introduction § 1. 

ὃ For the metaphor ef. dn Seni Respublica Gerenda Sit, 
787 ©, and Plato, Philebus, 13 p; the meaning is guaranteed 
by ἀπωσθέντες (“ driven from our course’’) infra. Cf. the 
nautical metaphor with which Sulla interrupts Lamprias at 
940 F infra (τὸν μῦθον. . . ἐξοκείλας). 

ὁ The speaker and narrator of the dialogue is Lamprias, 
the brother of Plutarch; cf. 937 Ὁ, 940 F, 945 pb, infra. 

4 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 77 © and 114 pv, Republic, 608 a. 


35 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(920) 2. “Opdas yap εὐθὺς ὡς ἄτοπος ὁ λέγων τὸ φαινό- 
μενον εἶδος ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ πάθος εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως, 
ὑπεικούσης τῇ λαμπρότητι δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν, ὃ (μαραυ- 
yiav)* καλοῦμεν, > οὐ συνορῶν ὅτι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον 
ἔδει τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ὀξὺν ἀπαντῶντα καὶ 
πλήκτην (ὥς που καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς τὴν ἑκατέρων 
ἀποδίδωσιν οὐκ ἀηδῶς διαφορὰν 


ἥλιος ὀξυβελὴς ἡ δ᾽ αὖ ἱλάειρα σελήνη," 


τὸ ἐπαγωγὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἱλαρὸν καὶ ἄλυπον οὕτως" 
προσαγορεύσας) ἔπειτ᾽ (οὐδ λόγον ἀποδιδοὺς καθ᾽ 
Do ὃν αἱ  ἀμυδραὶ καὶ ἀσθενεῖς ὄψεις οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν 
ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μορφῆς ἐνορῶσιν ἀλλὰ λεῖος αὐταῖς 
ἀντιλάμπει καὶ περίπλεως αὐτῆς ὁ κύκλος οἱ δ᾽ 
ὀξὺ καὶ σφοδρὸν ὁρῶντες ἐξακριβοῦσι μᾶλλον καὶ 
διαστέλλουσιν ἐκτυπούμενα τὰ εἴδη τοῦ προσώπου 
καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἅπτονται σαφέστερον: ἔδει γάρ, 
οἶμαι, τοὐναντίον, εἴπερ ἡττωμένου πά(θος)" ὄμ- 
ματος ἐποίει τὴν φαντασίαν, ὅπου τὸ πάσχον 
ἀσθενέστερον, (σαφέστερον εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον. 
ἡ δ᾽ ἀνωμαλία καὶ παντάπασιν ἐλέγχει τὸν λόγον" 
οὐ γάρ ἐστι συνεχοῦς σκιᾶς καὶ συγκεχυμένης 


1 H.C. (cf. Stobaeus, Hel. iii. 1. 196); vac. 8-E, 9-B; 
μαραυγεῖν -Wyttenbach ; μαρμαρυγὰς -Raingeard (cf. Plato, 
Timaeus, 68 a; Chariton, EF, 3. 9). 

* So punctuated in Basiliensis; E and B have mark of 
interrogation. 

8. Xylander (ἱλάειρα σελήνη -Hesychius) ; ἥλιος ὀξυμελὴς ἡ 


δὲ λάιρα σελήνη -E, B; . . . ἠδ᾽ ἱλάειρα τς -Dindorf feu 
Emperius) followed by Diels-Kranz ; .. . ἠδ᾽ (ἥδ᾽) ἱλάειρα 
σελήνη -Purser. 4 E; οὕτῶ -B. 


5 Bases (1897); ἔπειτα λόγον -E, B; ἔπειτα λόγον (οὐκ) 
-Emperius (1847). 
6 Wyttenbach ; za vac. 4-E, 5-B. 


36 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 920 


2. Well, to begin with, you see that it is absurd to 
call the figure seen in the moon an affection of vision 
in its feebleness giving way to brilliance, a condition 
which we call (bedazzlement). Anyone who asserts 
this 7 does not observe that this phenomenon should 
rather have occurred in relation to the sun, since the 
sun lights upon us keen and violent (as Empedocles ὃ 
too somewhere not infelicitously renders the differ- 
ence of the two: 


The sun keen-shafted and the gentle moon, 


referring in this way to her allurement and cheerful- 
ness and harmlessness), and moreover does (not) 
explain why dull and weak eyes discern no distinction 
of shape in the moon but her orb for them has an even 
and full light, whereas those of keen and robust 
vision make out more precisely and distinctly the 
pattern of facial features and more clearly perceive 
the variations. In fact the contrary, I think, should 
have been the case if the image resulted from an 
affection of the eye when it is overpowered: the 
weaker the subject affected, (the clearer) should be 
the appearance of the image. The unevenness also 
entirely refutes the hypothesis, for the shadow that 
one sees is not continuous and confused but is not 


* If Plutarch has a definite person in mind, I have not been 
able to identify him. Adler (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, p. 127) 
thinks that ὁ λέγων refers to a physicist whose name Plutarch 
himself probably did not know, and Raingeard that it refers 
to ** esprits cultivés ”’ in general. 

ὃ Frag. 40 (i, p. 329. 11 [Diels-Kranz]). 





7 Wyttenbach (who, however, also inserted ἐστιν before 
σαφέστερον). implied in the versions of Amyot and Kepler ; 
ἀσθενέστερον εἶναι -E, B. 


8 Wyttenbach : ἐπὶ -E, B. 
37 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


» 5 3 
20) ὄψις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ φαύλως ὑπογράφων ὁ ᾿Αγησιάναξ' 
εἴρηκε 
E πᾶσα μὲν ἥδε πέριξ πυρὶ λάμπεται, ἐν δ᾽ ἄρα 
μέσσῃ" 
/ 7 / / 3. 9 / 
γλαυκότερον κυάνοιο φαείνεται ἠύτε κούρης 
” ΟΣ ἢ. \ ΄ \ y BY 3 " ” 
ὄμμα καὶ ὑγρὰ μέτωπα: Ta δὲ ῥέθει" ἄντα ἔοικεν" 


ὄντως γὰρ ὑποδύεται περιιόντα" τοῖς λαμπροῖς τὰ 
\ \ / , 5 7, eS 5 ἃς 
σκιερὰ καὶ πιέζει (mueCoueva)’? πάλιν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
\ > / Δ / > > vr 
Kal ἀποκοπτόμενα Kal ὅλως πέπλεκται δι᾿ ἀλλήλων 
“ 8 \ \ , 7 > ~ 
F (wore) γραφικὴν τὴν διαζτύπωσιν) εἶναι τοῦ 
σχήματος. (τοῦτο δὲ)" καὶ πρὸς Κλέαρχον, ὦ 
᾿Αριστότελες, οὐκ ἀπιθάνως ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι τὸν 
ὑμέτερον: ὑμέτερος γὰρ ἁνήρ," ᾿Αριστοτέλους"" τοῦ 
παλαιοῦ γεγονὼς συνήθης, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ τοῦ 
Περιπάτου παρέτρεψεν.᾽᾽ 
3. “YroAaBovros δὲ τοῦ ᾿Απολλωνίδου" τὸν λόγον 
\ / Ss of / ~ / / 
καὶ Tis ἦν ἡ δόξα τοῦ Κλεάρχου διαπυθομένου, 
“παντὶ μᾶλλον ᾿᾿ ἔφην “ ἀγνοεῖν ἢ σοὶ προσῆκόν 
ἐστι λόγον ὥσπερ ἀφ᾽ ἑστίας τῆς γεωμετρίας 
E, B; Ἡγησιάναξ -Turnebus ; Ἑρμησιάναξ -Hartman. 
E; μέσῃ -B. 3 Salmasius ; τὸ δ᾽ ἐρεύθει -E, B. 
Turnebus ; περιόντα -E, B. 

5 H.C.; πιέζει πάλιν -E, B; this sentence has been more 
drastically altered by Wyttenbach, van Herwerden, Ber- 
nardakis, and Adler. 

6 Kepler, Wyttenbach, and implied by Amyot’s version ; 
ἀλλήλων vac. 4- E, 8-B. 

? Kepler, W yttenbach ; δια vac. 5-E, 8-B. 

8 Bernardakis ; σχήματος vac. 7-E, B. 

9 Bernardakis (ὁ ἀνήρ -Diibner) ; ἀνὴρ -Εἰ, Β. 


10 Turnebus ; ὁ ἀριστοτέλης -E, Β. It is just possible that 
ὁ ᾿ΔἈριστοτέλης was originally a marginal gloss on τοῦ παλαιοῦ. 


38 


ὮὩ τ μὶ 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 920 


badly depicted by the words of Agesianax ¢ : 


She gleams with fire encircled, but within 
Bluer than lapis show a maiden’s eye 
And dainty brow, a visage manifest. 


In truth, the dark patches submerge beneath the 
bright ones which they encompass and confine them, 
being confined and curtailed by them in turn; and 
they are thoroughly intertwined with each other (so 
as to) make the (delineation) of the figure resemble 
a painting. (This), Aristotle, seemed ὃ to be a point 
not without cogency against your Clearchus ὁ also. 
For the man is yours, since he was an associate of 
the ancient Aristotle, although he did pervert many 
doctrines of the School.” ¢ 

3. Apollonides broke in and inquired what the 
opinion of Clearchus was. “‘ You are the last person,” 
I said, “ who has any right not to know a theory of 
which geometry is, as it were, the very hearth and 


α Schmid (Christ-Schmid-Stahlin, Gesch. der griech. 
Litteratur®, ii. 1, p. 164, n. 5) assumes that the verses here 
quoted are from the astronomical poem of Hegesianax ; so 
also Susemihl (Gesch. der griech. Litteratur in der Alex- 
andrinerzeit, ii, p. 33, n. 19),.Schaefer (1... i. 795), and 
Stahelin (1... vii. 2603. 59 ff.). Powell (Collectanea Alexan- 
drina, Ὁ. 8) prints the verses as fragment 1 of the Phaenomena 
of Hegesianax but observes that Cod. A Catalogi Interpretum 
Arati gives ᾿Αγησιάναξ. 

® i.e. in the earlier discussion which Lamprias is now re- 
lating for Sulla’s benefit. 

¢ Clearchus of Soli, pupil of Aristotle ; Wehrli, Die Schule 
des Aristoteles, Heft IIL: Klearchos, frag. 97 (cf. A.J.P. Ixx 
[1949], pp. 417-418). 

4 For ὁ Περίπατος. “ἧ the Promenade,” used to designate the 
school of Aristotle, cf. De Musica, 1131 τ, and “ the Peri- 
patetics ” in Adv. Coloten, 1115 a-s, and Sulla, xxvi (468 8). 


11 Editors (cf. 921 B) ; ἀπολλωνιάδου -E, B. 
39 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


¢ / / \ ¢ \ 1 5» / > A 
(920) ὁρμώμενον" λέγει yap ἁνὴρ' εἰκόνας ἐσοπτρικὰς 
εἶναι καὶ εἴδωλα τῆς μεγάλης θαλάσσης ἐμφαινό- 

921 μενα τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον" ἥ τε γὰρ 

ὄψις" ἀνακλωμένη πολλαχόθεν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν οὐ 
κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν" δρωμένων πέφυκεν, ἢ τε πανσέλη- 
νος αὐτὴ πάντων ἐσόπτρων ὁμαλότητι καὶ στιλ- 
πνότητι κάλλιστόν ἐστι καὶ καθαρώτατον. ὥσπερ 
> \ > 4 ” 3 ιν A > / a oe \ 
οὖν τὴν ipw)* οἴεσθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἀνακλωμένης ἐπὶ τὸν 
a ~ » , ~ ~ / / \ 
ἥλιον τῆς ὄψεως ἐνορᾶσθαι τῷ νέφει λαβόντι νοτερὰν 
ἡσυχῇ λειότητα καὶ (πῆλξιν, οὕτως ἐκεῖνος ἐν- 
Β ορᾶσθαι τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν ἔξω θάλασσαν οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἧς 
ἐστι χώρας ἀλλ᾽ ὅθεν ἡ κλάσις ἐποίησε τῇ ὄψει" τὴν 
ἐπαφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν: ὥς που πάλιν ὁ 
Diibner (“‘ vir ille ’’ -Kepler) ; ἀνὴρ -E, B. 
Turnebus, Vulcobius, Kepler ; ἔτυς -E, B 
E; κατευθυωρίαν -B. 
Xylander, Turnebus ; τὴν 7 vac. 1-3-E (at end of line) ; 
τὴν vac. 4-B. 

5 Turnebus, Vulcobius (cf. Quaest. Conviv. 691 τ, Ama- 
torius, 765 ©, and Aristotle’s Meteorology, 382 Ὁ 31 ff.) ; καὶ 
vac. 2 éw -E, B. 

6. Wyttenbach ; τὴν ὄψιν -E, B. 


1 
2 
3 
4 


α Similar theories are referred to by Aétius, ii. 30. 1 (Dow. 
Graeci, p. 361 b 10-13) =Stobaeus, Eelogae, i. 26. 4; Lucian, 
Icaromenippus, § 20; Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 457. 15-16. 
Such a theory is recorded and refuted by Ibn Al-Haitham, 
the Arabic astronomer of the tenth and eleventh centuries (cf. 
Schoy’s translation, pp. 1-2 and 5-6). Emperor Rudolph II 
believed the spots on the moon to be the reflection of Italy 
and the large Italian islands (cf. Kepler, Opera Omnia, ii, 
p. 491 cited by Pixis, Kepler als Geograph, p. 102); and A. 
von Humboldt (osmos, iii, p. 544 [Stuttgart, 1850]) tells of 
a Persian from Ispahan who assured him that what we see 
in the moon is the map of our earth (cf. Ebner, Geographische 
Hinweise und Ankldnge in Plutarchs Schrift, de facie, p. 13, 
n. 3): 


40 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 920-921 


home. The man, you see, asserts that what is called 
the face consists of mirrored likenesses, that is images 
of the great ocean reflected in the moon,’ for the 
visual ray when reflected naturally reaches from many 
points objects which are not directly visible and the 
full moon is itself in uniformity and lustre ὃ the finest 
and clearest of all mirrors. Just as you think, then, 
that the reflection of the visual ray to the sun accounts 
for the appearance of the (rainbow) in a cloud where 
the moisture has become somewhat smooth and (con- 
densed),° so Clearchus thought that the outer ocean 
is seen in the moon, not in the place where it is but 
in the place whence the visual ray has been deflected 
to the ocean and the reflection of the ocean to us. 


δ i.e. in the evenness and polish of its surface. 

¢ For the rainbow as a reflection of the sun in the cloud 
cf. De Iside, 358 τ, Amatorius, 765 E-F (where there is a 
strong verbal similarity to the present passage), De Placitis, 
894 c-F (=Aétius, 11]. 5, 3-10 and 11 [Dow. Graeci, pp. 372- 
373]). According to Aétius, iii. 5. 11 (= De Placitis, 894 ¥F) 
the theory was held by Anaxagoras (cf. frag. Β 19=ii, p. 41. 
8-11 [Diels-Kranz]). It is developed by Aristotle in Meteoro- 
logy, 111. 4, 373 a 32—375 Ὁ 15 (ef. Areius Didymus’s Epitome, 
frag. 14= Dow. Graeci, p. 455. 14 ff., and Seneca, Vat. Quaest. 
i. 3). Diogenes Laertius, vii. 152 cites Posidonius for the 
definition ἔριν δ᾽ εἶναι. . . ws ΠΙἊοσειδώνιός φησιν. . . ἔμφασιν 
ἡλίου τμήματος ἢ σελήνης ev νέφει δεδροσισμένῳ, κοίλῳ Kal 
συνεχεῖ πρὸς φαντασίαν, ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ φανταζομένην κατὰ 
κύκλου περιφέρειαν (cf. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. i. 5. 13); and 
Adler (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, pp. 128-129) contends that Posi- 
donius was Plutarch’s source for the formulation of the theory. 
Plutarch’s οἴεσθ᾽ ὑμεῖς, however, addressed to Apollonides 
must be intended to ascribe the theory generally to ‘* you 
mathematicians ’’; and this is confirmed by the passage of 
De Iside cited above, which reads: καὶ καθάπερ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ 
τὴν ἶριν . .. λέγουσι... .. On the difference between the 
theories of Aristotle and Posidonius cf. O. Gilbert, Die 
meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums, pp. 
614-616. 


41 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(921) ᾿Αγησιάναξ εἴρηκεν 
ἢ πόντου μέγα κῦμα καταντία κυμαίνοντος 


δείκελον ἰνδάλλοιτο πυριφλεγέθοντος ἐσόπτρου.᾽᾽ 
4. ᾿Ησθεὶς" οὖν ὁ ᾿Απολλωνίδης “ὡς ἴδιον ᾿᾿ εἶπε 
καὶ καινὸν ὅλως τὸ σκευώρημα τῆς δόξης, τόλμαν 
δέ τινα καὶ μοῦσαν ἔχοντος ἀνδρός" ἀλλὰ πῇ τὸν 
ἔλεγχον αὐτῷ προσῆγες; semis πρῶτον μὲν vi εἶπον 
“ἢν μία φύσις τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης ἐ ἐστί, σύρρουν καὶ 
συνεχὲς (eav7@ )* πέλαγος, ἡ δ᾽ ἔμφασις οὐ μία 
τῶν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μελασμάτων ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἰσθμοὺς 
σ ἔχουσα, τοῦ λαμπροῦ διαιροῦντος καὶ διορίζοντος 
τὸ σκιερόν. ὅθεν ἑκάστου τόπου χωρισθέντος καὶ 
πέρας ἴδιον ἔχοντος αἱ τῶν φωτεινῶν ἐπιβολαὶ τοῖς 
σκοτεινοῖς ὕψους εἰκόνα καὶ βάθους" λαμβάνουσαι 
τὰς περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ χείλη εἰκόνας φαινο- 
μένας ὁμοιότατα διετύπωσαν: ὥστ᾽ ἢ πλείονας ἔξω 
θαλάσσας ὑποληπτέον ἰσθμοῖς τισι καὶ ἠπείροις 
ἀπολαμβανομένας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον καὶ ψεῦδος, 
ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης οὐ πιθανὸν εἰκόνα διεσπασμένην οὕ- 
τως ἐμφαίνεσθαι. ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἐρωτᾶν ἀσφα- 
λέστερόν ἐστιν ἢ ἀποφαίνεσθαι σοῦ παρόντος, εἶ, 
τῆς οἰκουμένης εὖρος ἐχούσης" καὶ μῆκος, ξκϑόμεϑειι 
D πᾶσαν ὡσαύτως ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης ὄψιν ἀνακλω- 
μένην ἐπιθιγγάνειν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ 
τῇ μεγάλῃ θαλάττῃ πλέουσι νὴ Δία καὶ οἰκοῦσιν, 
1 E, B; ἡ -Emperius. 
* Xylander ; πεισθεὶς -Εἰ, B. 
3 Adler (Wiener Studien, xxxi [1909], p. 306, cf. Zwei 
Beitrdge, etc., p. 7); : προσῆγε -E, Β. 
WW, yttenbach ; : εἰ -Ἐ, B 
6 Adler ; συνεχὲς vac. 5-E, B. 


δ insous . . βάθους - “Leonicus ; udous . ,, βάθος -E, B. 
q Leonicus ; ἴσης -K, B. 


42 


ce 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 921 


So Agesianax again has somewhere said : 


Or swell of ocean surging opposite 
Be mirrored in a looking-glass of flame.”’ @ 


4. Apollonides was delighted. “ What an original 
and absolutely novel contrivance the hypothesis is,” 
he said, “ the work of a man of daring and culture ; 
but how did you proceed to bring your counter- 
argument against it? ”’ “ In the first place,” I said, 
‘in that, although the outer ocean is a single thing, 
a confluent and continuous sea,’ the dark spots in the 
moon do not appear as one but as having something 
like isthmuses between them, the brilliance dividing 
and delimiting the shadow. Hence, since each part 
is separated and has its own boundary, the layers 
of light upon shadow,’ assuming the semblance of 
height and depth, have produced a very close like- 
ness of eyes and lips. Therefore, one must assume 
the existence of several outer oceans separated by 
isthmuses and mainlands, which is absurd and false ; 
or, if the ocean is single, it is not plausible that its 
reflected image be thus discontinuous. Tell me 
whether—for in your presence it is safer to put this 
as a question than as an assertion—whether it is 
possible, though the inhabited world has length and 
breadth, that every visual ray when reflected from 
the moon should in like manner reach the ocean, even 
the visual rays of those who are sailing in the great 
ocean itself, yes and who dwell in it as the Britons 

* Powell (Collectanea Alexandrina, p. 9) prints these 
lines as fragment 2 of the Phaenomena of Hegesianax ; see 
note a on p. 39 supra. 

> Cf. Strabo, i. 1. 8 (i, p. 6. 4-7 [Meineke]). 

¢ The language is that of painting ; cf. Lucian, Zeuwis, 5: 
τῶν χρωμάτων ἀκριβῆ τὴν κρᾶσιν Kal εὔκαιρον THY ἐπιβολὴν 
ποιήσασθαι. 


48 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(921) ὥσπερ Βρεττανοῖς, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲ τῆς γῆς, ws 
pate, πρὸς τὴν σφαῖραν τῆς σελήνης κέντρου λόγον 
ἐπεχούσης;" τουτὶ μὲν οὖν ἔφην “Ὧ σὸν ἔργον 
ἐπισκοπεῖν τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν σελήνην ἢ {ζκαθόλουν" 
τῆς ΤΈΩΣ κλάσιν οὐκέτι σὸν οὐδ᾽ “Ἱππάρχου: 
καίτοι ἐφιλέργει ἁν(ὴρ)" ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς οὐκ 
ἀρέσκει po aia loy@v περὶ τῆς ὄψεως αὐτῆς, <Hvy? 

E ὁμοιοπαθῆ" κρᾶσιν ἴσχειν καὶ σύμπηξιν εἰκός ἐστι 
μᾶλλον ἢ πληγάς τινας καὶ ἀποπηδήσεις οἵας 
ἔπλαττε τῶν ἀτόμων ᾿Κπίκουρος. οὐκ ἐθελήσει 
δέ, οἶμαι, τὴν “σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα 
καὶ στερεὸν ἡμῖν" ὁ Κλέαρχος ἀλλ᾽ ἄστρον αἰθέριον 
καὶ φωσφόρον, ὥς φατε: τοιαύτῃ {δὲν" τὴν ὄψιν 


1 Wyttenbach (implied in versions of Amyot and Kepler) ; 
ἔφατε -E, B. 

2 After ἐπεχούσης. E has a lacuna of 2 letter spaces. 

3. H.C. (ef. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 138-139) ; σελήνην ἢ 
τῆς -E, Β ; σελήνην τῆς -Basiliensis. 

21H. (95 (cf. Ptolemy, Syntaxis, iii. 1 [i. I, p. 191. 19-20, 
Heiberg] : TO ἹἹππάρχῳ ἀνδρὶ φιλοπόνῳ τε ὁμοῦ καὶ φιλαλήθει) : 
καίτοι γε φίλε πρίαμ vac. 2-EK, 3-B ; καίτοι γε φιλοπράγμων ἁ ἁνήρ 
-Pohlenz (Phil. Woch. xxxii [1912], pp. 649-650); καίτοι γ᾽ 
copetre προτιμᾶσθαι -Apelt (Jena, 1905). 

5 Wyttenbach : αὐτὴν -E, B. 

6 Adler, Zwei Beitr dge, Ὁ. 8 (cf. De FE, 390 8, De Defectu, 
433 Ὁ: Plato, Timaeus, 45 α: so in Quaest. Conviv. 626 Ὁ 
read ὁμοιοπαθῆ with Bernardakis instead of Hubert’s ὁμοπαθῆ): 
ὁμοπαθῆ -E, B. 

7 H.C. ; ὑμῖν -E, B, and all editors, though the versions of 
Xylander, Kepler, and Wyttenbach have “ἡ nobis ”’ and that 
of Amyot has “ nous.” 

8 Wyttenbach ; τοιαύτη τὴν ὄψιν -E, B; τοιαύτην τὴν ὄψιν 
-Basiliensis. 


* i.e. “ὁ you mathematicians’; see οἴεσθ᾽ ὑμεῖς in 921 A 
supra. The reference is to the eccentrics of Hipparchus’s 
theory of the motion of the moon, For defence of the text 


41 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 921 


do, and that too even though the earth, as you say,* 
does not have the relation of centre to the orbit of 
the moon. Well, this,” I said, “ it is your business 
to consider; but the reflection of vision either in 
respect to the moon or (in general) is beyond your 
province and that of Hipparchus too.? Although 
Hipparchus was industrious, still many find him un- 
satisfactory in his explanation of the nature of vision 
itself, (which) is more likely to involve a sympa- 
thetic compound and fusion ° than any impacts and 
rebounds such as those of the atoms that Epicurus 
invented.?2 Moreover, Clearchus, I think, would 
refuse to assume with us that the moon is a body of 
weight and solidity instead of an ethereal and lumini- 
ferous star as you say ®; (and) such a moon ought 


and a detailed interpretation of this sentence cf. Class. Phil. 
xlvi (1951), pp. 137-138. 

ὃ Because Hipparchus was a mathematician and not a 
physicist (φυσιολόγος) : on the difference cf. Geminus in 
Simplicius, Phys. pp. 291. 23-292. 29, and the phrase, διὰ 
τὸ μὴ ἐφωδιάσθαι ἀπὸ φυσιολογίας, which Theon of Smyrna 
(p. 188. 19-20) uses of Hipparchus. 

¢ Plato’s theory; cf. Timaeus, 45 c and De Placitis, 901 
B-c= Aétius, iv. 13. 11 (Dow. Graeci, p. 404). 

4 Cf. Adv. Coloten, 1112 c and De Placitis, 901 a-B= 
Aétius, iv. 13. 1 (Dow. Graeci, p. 403. 2-4). The present 
passage seems to imply that Hipparchus’s explanation of 
vision resembled that of Epicurus. In De Placitis, 901 B= 
Aétius, iv. 13. 9 (Dox. Graeci, p. 404) a theory of vision is 
attributed to Hipparchus, however, which does not at all 
resemble that of the atomists; but the name Hipparchus 
there is probably a mistake, cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 154, 
τί. Ὁ: 

ὁ Lamprias addresses Apollonides and Aristotle, for that 
the moon is an ethereal and luminiferous star is the Peri- 
patetic theory (cf. the statement of Aristotle at 928 πὶ infra 
and the references in the note there) and that is why it is 
ascribed to Clearchus. Obviously then ὑμῖν of the mss. must 


45 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(921) [ἢ] θραύειν' προσήκει καὶ ἀποστρέφειν, ὥστ᾽ ol- 
χεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. εἰ δὲ παραιτεῖταί" τις ἡμᾶς, 
ἐρησόμεθα" πῶς μόνον πρόσωπόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σε- 
λήνῃ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔσοπτρον ἄλλῳ δ᾽ οὐδενὶ 
τῶν τοσούτων ἀστέρων ἐνορᾶται" καίτοι τό Y. 
εἰκὸς ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἢ πρὸς μηδένα τοῦτο" 

F πάσχειν τὴν ὄψιν. ἀλλ᾽ (ἐάσωμεν ταῦτα, καὶ 
σύ, )" πρὸς τὸν Λεύκιον ἔφην" ἀποβλέψας, “‘ ὃ 
πρῶτον ἐλέχθη τῶν ἡμετέρων ὑπόμνησον.᾽ 

5. Καὶ ὁ Λεύκιος “᾿ ἀλλὰ μὴ δόξωμεν ᾿᾿ ἔφη 
᾿ κομιδῇ προπηλακίζειν τὸν Φαρνάκην οὕτω τὴν 
Στωικὴν δόξαν ἀπροσαύδητον ὑπερβαίνοντες, εἰπὲ 
δή τι πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα πάντως, ἀέρος μῖγμα καὶ 
μαλακοῦ πυρὸς ὑποτιθέμενον τὴν σελήνην εἶθ᾽ οἷον 
ἐν γαλήνῃ φρίκης ὑποτρεχούσης φάσκοντα τοῦ 
ἀέρος διαμελαίνοντος ἔμφασιν γίγνεσθαι μορ- 


= 


φοειδῆ.᾽ C μάλαλν" χρηστῶς γ᾽ εἶπον ᾿ ὦ 
Λεύκιε, τὴν" ἀτοπίαν εὐφήμοις περιαμπέχεις ὀνό- 
μασιν: οὐχ οὕτως" δ᾽ ὁ ἑταῖρος ἡμῶν," ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ 


1 Turnebus, Vulcobius ; ἢ θραῦσιν -Ἰὰ, B. 

2 Wyttenbach : προσδεῖταί -E, B. 

8 Wyttenbach after the versions of Amyot and Xylander ; 
χρησόμεθα -E, B. 4 E 3 τούτων -B. 

5 Adler; ἀλλ vac. 16-E, 19-B. 

ὁ Wyttenbach ; ἐφ᾽ ὧν -E, B; εἶπον -Turnebus. 

7 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94, printed by Wyttenbach without 
note; παντὸς -E, B: πα(γέ)ντος -Pohlenz (Die Stoa, ii, p. 


8 Adler ; μορφοειδῆ. vac. 5-E (at end of line), 4-B. 
9. B; Λεύκιε vac. 3-E. 
10 EF; οὕτω -B. 11 Aldine, Basiliensis ; ὑμῶν -E, B. 


be an error and should be changed to ἡμῖν, for that the moon 
is a body with weight and solidity is the opinion of the 
Academy, i.e. of Lamprias, Lucius, and their circle (cf. 996 ο, 
928 c, 931 B-c infra). 


46 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 921 


to shatter and divert the visual ray so that reflection 
would be out of the question. But if anyone dismisses 
our objections, we shall ask how it is that the reflec- 
tion of the ocean exists as a face only in the moon 
and is seen in none of all the many other stars, 
although reason requires that all or none of them 
should affect the visual ray in this fashion. But 
(let us have done with this; and do you),” I said 
with a glance at Lucius, “ recall to me what part of 
our position was stated first.”’ 

5. Whereat Lucius said: “ Nay, lest we give the 
impression of flatly insulting Pharnaces by thus 
passing over the Stoic opinion unnoticed, do now by 
all means address some remark to the gentleman 
who, supposing the moon to be a mixture of air and 
gentle fire, then says that what appears to be a figure 
is the result of the blackening of the air as when in a 
calm water there runs a ripple under the surface.” α 
" You are (very) nice, Lucius,’’ I said, “ to dress up 
the absurdity in respectable language. Not so our 

« Von Arnim (S.V.F. ii, p. 198) prints this and some of 
the subsequent sentences as frag. 673 among the Physical 
Fragments of Chrysippus. For the Stoic doctrine that the 
moon is a mixture of air and fire cf. De Placitis, 891 Β and 
892 B (= Aétius, li. 25. 5 [Dow Graeci, p. 356] and ii, 30. 5 
[ Dow. CGraeci, p. 361]),and 3. V.F. ii, p. 136. 32. The “ gentle 
fire ” here mentioned is the πῦρ τεχνικόν aS iP ea from 
destructive fire (cf. S.V.F. i, p. 34. 22-97 and ii, p. 200. 
14-16). For the Stoic explanation of the face in the moon 


cf. S.V.F. ii, p. 199. 3-5 (=Philo Judaeus, De Somniis, i, 
§ 145); and for the simile of the ripple ef. Iliad, vii. 63- 64. 


47 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(921) ἀληθὲς ἦν ἔλεγεν, ὑπωπιάζειν' αὐτοὺς τὴν σελήνην 
922 σπίλων καὶ μελασμῶν ἀναπιμπλάντας, ὁμοῦ μὲν 
Ἄρτεμιν καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶν ἀνακαλοῦντας ὁμοῦ δὲ σύμ- 
μιγμαῦ καὶ φύραμα ποιοῦντας ἀέρος ζοφεροῦ καὶ 
\ 5 / > ” ” 3 > 
πυρὸς ἀνθρακώδους, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ἔξαψιν οὐδ 
αὐγὴν οἰκείαν, ἀλλὰ δυσκρινές τι σῶμα τυφόμενον 
ἀεὶ καὶ πυρίκαυστον ὥσπερ τῶν κεραυνῶν τοὺς 
ἀλαμπεῖς καὶ ψολόεντας ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν προσα- 
γορευομένους. ὅτι μέντοι πῦρ ἀνθρακῶδες, οἷον 
= ~ ~ \ 
οὗτοι TO τῆς σελήνης ποιοῦσιν, οὐκ ἔχει διαμονὴν 
οὐδὲ σύστασιν ὅλως ἐὰν μὴ στερεᾶς ὕλης καὶ στε- 
/ “ \ / > / / 
B yovons ἅμα Kat τρεφούσης ἐπιλάβηται βέλτιον 
οἶμαι συνορᾶν ἐνίων φιλοσόφων τοὺς ἐν παιδιᾷ 
/ \ “ 5». - \ “ \ ~ 
λέγοντας τὸν “Ἥφαιστον εἰρῆσθαι χωλὸν ὅτι τὸ πῦρ 
ξύλου χωρὶς ὥσπερ οἱ χωλοὶ βακτηρίας οὐ πρόεισιν. 
εἰ οὖν ἡ σελήνη πῦρ ἐστι, πόθεν αὐτῇ τοσοῦτος 
ἐγγέγονεν ἀήρ; ὁ γὰρ ἄνω καὶ κύκλῳ φερόμενος 
/ 

οὑτοσὶ τόπος οὐκ ἀέρος ἀλλὰ κρείττονος οὐσίας 

εἰ Ψ 
καὶ πάντα λεπτύνειν καὶ συνεξάπτειν φύσιν ἐχούσης 

> / Ψ > ᾽ / 3 ~ > ” LAA 
ἐστίν: εἰ δ᾽ ἐγγέγονε," πῶς οὐκ οἴχεται μεταβάλλων 

1 Basiliensis, Turnebus ; ὑποπιέζειν -E, B. 


2 Stephanus (1624) ; σύμμιγα -E, B. 
3 -Anon., Aldine, R.J.94; δὲ γέγονε -E, B. 


2 See 929 w and 929 r infra. This comrade was the leader 
of the earlier discussion, which is here being recapitulated, 
and is probably to be identified with Plutarch himself (so 
Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii, p.184, n.2, and Hartman, De Plutarcho, 
p. 557); of. De Tuenda Sanitate, 122 ¥ for a similar situation 
and Quaest. Conviv. 643 c, where Hagias addresses Plutarch 
as “* comrade.” 

> Of. 8. VF. ii, p. 212. 38-39 (Chrysippus), iii, p. 217. 12-13 
(Diogenes of Babylon); in general Quaest. Conviv. 658 r— 
659 a, and Roscher, Uber Selene und Verwandtes, p. 116. 


48 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 921-922 


comrade“; but he said what is true, that they 
blacken the Moon’s eye defiling her with blemishes 
and bruises, at one and the same time addressing her 
as Artemis ὃ and Athena © and making her a mass 
compounded of murky air and smouldering fire 
neither kindling nor shining of herself, an indis- 
criminate kind of body, forever charred and smoking 
like the thunderbolts that are darkling and by the 
poets called lurid.¢ Yet a smouldering fire, such as 
they suppose that of the moon to be, cannot persist 
or subsist at all unless it get solid fuel that shelters 
and at the same time nourishes it ὁ ; this some philo- 
sophers, I believe, see less clearly than do those who 
say in jest that Hephaestus is said to be lame because 
fire without wood, like the lame without a stick, 
makes no progress.’ If the moon really is fire, whence 
came so much air init? For the region that we see 
revolving above us is the place not of air but of a 
superior substance, the nature of which is to rarefy all 
things and set them δῆτε ; and, if air did come to be 
there, why has it not been etherealized by the fire 2 


¢ Of. 938 B infra. In De Iside, 354 c Isis, who later is 
identified with the moon (372 Ὁ), is identified with Athena 
(cf. 376 a). Cf. Roscher, op. cit. pp. 123 f. (on the supposed 
fragment of Aristotle there cited see V. Rose, Aristoteles 
Pseudepigraphus, pp. 616 (no. 4] and 617). 

4 Cf. Odyssey, xxiii. 330 and xxiv. 539 ; Hesiod, Theogony, 
515; Pindar, Nemean, x. 71; Aristotle, Meteorology, 371 a 
17-24. ἐ See 934 B-c infra. 

* Cf. Cornutus, chap. 18 (p. 33. 18-22 Lang); Heracliti 
Quaestiones Homericae, § 26 (p. 41. 2-6 Oelmann). 

9 Cf. S.V.F. ii, p. 184. 2-5: . . . ἐξαιθεροθσθαὶ mavra... 
εἰς πῦρ αἰθερῶδες ἀναλυομένων πάντων. ‘The “ ether ”’ here is 
Stoic ether, i.e. a kind of fire (ef. De Primo Frigido, 951 c-p 
and note d on 928 p infra), not Aristotle’s “ fifth essence,” 
which does not enter into the process of the alteration of 


simple bodies. 
49 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(922) εἰς ἕτερον εἶδος ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξαιθερωθεὶς ἀλλὰ 
σῴζεται καὶ συνοικεῖ πυρὶ τοσοῦτον χρόνον ὥσπερ 
5 ~ ~ 
ἥλοις apapws ἀεὶ Tots αὐτοῖς" μέρεσι Kal ovy- 
γεγομφωμένος; ἀραιῷ μὲν yap ὄντι καὶ συγ- 
/ \ / 5 \ 7ὔ] ᾽ὔ 
Ο κεχυμένῳ μὴ μένειν ἀλλὰ σφάλλεσθαι προσήκει 
συμπεπηγέναι δ᾽ οὐ δυνατὸν ἀναμεμιγμένον πυρὶ 
καὶ μήθ᾽ ὑγροῦ μετέχοντα μήτε γῆς, οἷς μόνοις 
ἀὴρ συμπήγνυσθαι πέφυκεν. ἡ δὲ ῥύμη καὶ τὸν 
? , 27 \ \ > A / 3 
ἐν λίθοις ἀέρα Kai Tov ev ψυχρῷ μολίβδῳ" συνεκ- 
κάει, μή Tl γε δὴ τὸν ἐν πυρὶ δινουμένῳ μετὰ 
τάχους τοσούτου. καὶ γὰρ ᾿Εμπεδοκλεῖ δυσκο- 
λαίνουσι πάγον ἀέρος χαλαζώδη ποιοῦντι τὴν σε- 
λήνην ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς σφαίρας περιεχόμενον 
αὐτοὶ δὲ τὴν σελήνην σφαῖραν οὖσαν πυρὸς ἀέρα 
φασὶν ἄλλον ἄλλῃ διεσπασμένον περιέχειν καὶ ταῦτα 
/ evs ΕΣ ᾽ ες ~~ / / \ 
D μήτε ῥήξεις ἔχουσαν ev ἑαυτῇ μήτε βάθη καὶ 
¢) ¢ ~ 
κοιλότητας, ἅπερ οἱ γεώδη ποιοῦντες ἀπολείπουσιν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπολῆς δηλονότι τῇ κυρτότητι ἐπικείμενον. 
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ πρὸς διαμονὴν ἄλογον καὶ πρὸς 
θέαν ἀδύνατον ἐν ταῖς πανσελήνοις" διωρίσθαι γὰρ 
, ” / \ \ LA 5 » ~ 
οὐκ ἔδει μέλανα καὶ σκιερὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαυροῦσθαι 
κρυπτόμενον ἢ συνεκλάμπειν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου κατα- 
~ / A \ > ¢ an 
λαμβανομένης THs σελήνης. καὶ yap παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
1 H.C. (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], Ὁ. 139); ἦλος -E, B. 


TEA 


2 ἘΣ; τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἀεὶ -B. 
3 EE; μολββδω (1.6. μολύβδῳ) -B. 
4 Τὶ ; μή τοί -Β. 5 Emperius ; διορίσασθαι -E, B. 





« Of. De Primo Frigido, 951 τ, 952 B, 953 D—954 a: but 
the Stoic opinion given in 949 8 (=S.V.F. ii, p. 142. 6-10) 
was that solidification (πῆξις) is a state produced in water by 
air, and Galen reports (δ. V.F’. ii, p. 145. 8-11) that according 


50 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 922 


and in this transformation disappeared but instead 
has been preserved as a housemate of fire this long 
time, as if nails had fixed it forever to the same 
spots and riveted it together? Air is tenuous and 
without configuration, and so it naturally slips and 
does not stay in place; and it cannot have be- 
come solidified if it is commingled with fire and 
partakes neither of moisture nor of earth by which 
alone air can be solidified.* Moreover, velocity 
ignites the air in stones and in cold lead, not to speak 
of the air enclosed in fire that is whirling about with 
such great speed.?”. Why, they are vexed by Em- 
pedocles because he represents the moon to be a 
hail-like congelation of air encompassed by the sphere 
of fire °; but they themselves say that the moon is 
a sphere of fire containing air dispersed about it here 
and there, and a sphere moreover that has neither 
clefts nor depths and hollows, such as are allowed 
by those who make it an earthy body, but has the 
air evidently resting upon its convex surface. That 
it should so remain is both contrary to reason and 
impossible to square with what is observed when the 
moon is full. On that assumption there should have 
been no distinction of dark and shadowy air; but 
all the air should become dark when occulted, or 
when the moon is caught by the sun it should all 
shine out with an even light. For with us too, while 


to the Stoics the hardness and resistance of earth are caused 
by fire and air. 

ὃ Cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, 289 a 19-32, Meteorology, 341 a 
17-19 ; Ideler, Avistotelis Meteorologica, i, pp. 359-360. 

¢ Empedocles, A 60 (i, p. 294, 24-31 [Diels-Kranz]); ef. 
[Plutarch], Stromat. § 10= Doz. Graeci, p. 582. 12-15=i, 
p. 288. 30-32 (Diels-Kranz); and C. E. Millard, On the 
Interpretation of Empedocles, pp. 65-68. 


51 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(922) ὁ μὲν ἐν βάθεσι καὶ κοιλώμασι τῆς γῆς, οὗ μὴ 
τώ αὐγή,' διαμένει" σκιώδης καὶ ἀφώτιστος ὁ 
δ᾽ ἔξωθεν τῇ γῇ περικεχυμένος φέγγος ἴσχει καὶ 
χρόαν αὐγοειδῆ: πρὸς πᾶσαν μὲν γάρ ἐστι ποιότητα 
E καὶ δύναμιν εὐκέραστος ὑπὸ μανότητος μάλιστα δὲ 
φωτὸς ἂν ἐπιψαύσῃ μόνον, ὥς φατε, καὶ θίγῃ δι᾿ 
ὅλου τρεπόμενος ἐκφωτίζεται. ταὐτὸν" οὖν τοῦτο 
καὶ τοῖς εἰς βάθη τινὰ καὶ φάραγγας συνωθοῦσιν 
ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ τὸν ἀέρα παγκάλως" ἔοικε βοηθεῖν 
ὑμᾶς τε διεξελέγχει τοὺς ἐξ ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς οὐκ 
οἶδ᾽ ὅπως μιγνύντας αὐτῆς καὶ συναρμόζοντας τὴν 
σφαῖραν: οὐ “γὰρ οἷόν τε λείπεσθαι σκιὰν ἐπὶ τῆς 
ἐπιφανείας. ὅταν ὁ ἥλιος ἐπιλάμπῃ τῷ φωτὶ πᾶν 
F ὁπόσον καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀποτεμνόμεθα τῇ ὄψει τῆς σε- 
λήνης.᾽ 
6. Καὶ ὁ Φαρνάκης ἔτι μου λέγοντος “ τοῦτ᾽ 
ἐκεῖνο πάλιν ᾿᾿ εἶπεν “ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἀφῖκται τὸ περί- 
ακτον ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ακαδημείας"" ἐν τῷ πρὸς ἑτέρους 
λέγειν διατρίβοντας ἑκάστοτε μὴ παρέχειν ἔλεγχον 
ὧν αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπολογουμένοις δεῖ" χρῆ- 


1 Stephanus (1624), cf. 999 π infra ; αὕτη -E, B. 
2 Stephanus (implied by versions of Amyot and pipet ἀρλι 
διαμελαίνει -E, Β. 3 Benseler ; ταὐτὸ -E, 
4° W yttenbach ; : κἂν καλῶς -E, B. 
5 Diibner ; ἀκαδημίας -E, B. 
6 K, B; ἀεὶ -Wyttenbach (implied by Amyot’s version). 


* Chrysippus, frag. 570 (S.V.F. ii, p 178. 20-2 2), cf. De 
Primo Frigido, 952 τ. With the w Ἣν ws φατε Lamprias 
addresses Pharnaces as representative of the Stoics, for whose 
doctrine of the instantaneous alteration of air by light see 
930 F infra and the references there ; oS. especially κατὰ 
νύξιν ἢ ψαῦσιν there with ἂν ἐπιψαύσῃ μόνον, ὥς φατε, here. 
Aristotle originated the doctrine that the transparent medium 
is altered instantaneously throughout its whole extent by 


52 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 922 


the air in the depths and hollows of the earth, wher- 
ever the sun’s rays do not penetrate, remains shadowy 
and unlit, that which suffuses the earth outside takes 
on brilliance and a luminous colour. The reason is 
that air, because of its subtility, is delicately attuned 
to every quality and influence ; and, especially if it 
touches light or, to use your phrase, merely is tangent 
to it, it is altered through and through and entirely 
illuminated.? So this same point seems right hand- 
somely to re-enforce those who pack the air on the 
moon into depths of some kind and chasms, even as 
it utterly refutes you who make her globe an unin- 
telligible mixture or compound of air and fire—for 
it is not possible ὃ that a shadow remain upon the 
surface when the sun casts his light upon all of the 
moon that is within the compass of our vision.”’ 

6. Even while I was still speaking Pharnaces spoke : 
“ Here we are faced again with that stock manceuvre 
of the Academy “ : on each occasion that they engage 
in discourse with others they will not offer any 
accounting of their own assertions but must keep 


the mere presence of light at any point (cf. De Sensu, 446 Ὁ 
27—447 a 10 and De Anima, 418 Ὁ 9 ff.). 

> i.e. on the Stoic theory. 

¢ The word τὸ zepiaxrov occurs in Comp. Lys. Sulla, iii, 
476 ©, where it seems to mean “ the old saw,” though it may 
refer to a proverbial state of “* inside out and wrong side to.” 
In De Gloria Atheniensium, 348 © Plutarch mentions μηχανὰς 
ἀπὸ σκηνῆς περιάκτους, but that rather tells against taking 
τὸ περίακτον as the name of this stage-machine. He uses 
περιαγωγή in De Genio Socratis, 588 τὸ in the sense of “ dis- 
traction’ and in Praecepta Gerendae Reipublicae, 819 a in 
the sense of ‘*‘ a trick of diversion,’’ a sense which certainly 
suits τὸ περίακτον in the present context. The complaint of 
Pharnaces is frequently made by the interlocutors of Socrates ; 
cf. Xenophon, Memorabilia, iv, 4.9; Plato, Republic, 336 c¢ ; 
Aristotle, Soph. Elench. 183 b 6-8. 


53 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(922) σθαι μὴ κατηγορῶσιν' Cols)* ἂν ἐντυγχάνωσιν. 
> \ > > > > / 7 > \ / 
ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ ἐξάξεσθε τήμερον εἰς TO διδόναι 
λόγον ὧν ἐπικαλεῖτε τοῖς Στωικοῖς, πρὶν εὐθύνας 
λαβεῖν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄνω τὰ κάτω τοῦ κόσμου ποιούν- 

}) \ ¢€ / “ ce / }) > 
των. Kat ὃ Λεύκιος γελάσας “᾿ μόνον ᾿᾿ εἶπεν 
cL. / \ / ¢ A > / > / 

923 “ὦ τάν, μὴ κρίσιν ἡμῖν ἀσεβείας ἐπαγγείλῃς, 
“ > / ” = , an ἢ , 
ὥσπερ Apiorapyov ᾧετο δεῖν Κλεάνθης" τὸν Σάμιον 
> / με 4 2 -¢ ε “ 
ἀσεβείας προσκαλεῖσθαι" τοὺς “EAAnvas ὡς κινοῦντα 
τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἑστίαν ὅτι {τὰ " φαινόμενα σῴζειν 
ἁνὴρ" ἐπειρᾶτο μένειν τὸν οὐρανὸν ὑποτιθέμενος 
3 / \ \ ~ / \ ~ “ 
ἐξελίττεσθαι δὲ κατὰ λοξοῦ κύκλου τὴν γῆν ἅμα 
καὶ περὶ τὸν αὑτῆς ἄξονα δινουμένην. ἡμεῖς μὲν 
οὖν οὐδὲν αὐτοὶ παρ᾽ αὑτῶν λέγομεν, of δὲ γῆν 
¢ / \ / “8ι / / ~ 
ὑποτιθέμενοι τὴν σελήνην, ὦ βέλτιστε, τί μᾶλλον 
ὑμῶν, ἄνω τὰ κάτω ποιοῦσι τὴν γῆν ἱδρυόντων 
ἐνταῦθα μετέωρον ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, πολλῷ τινι μείζονα 
τῆς σελήνης οὖσαν ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐκλειπτικοῖς πάθεσιν 
Β οἱ μαθηματικοὶ καὶ ταῖς διὰ τοῦ σκιάσματος παρ- 
ὄδοις τῇ ἐποχῇ τὸ μέγεθος ἀναμετροῦσιν; ἥ τε 


1 H.C.; κατηγοροῦσιν -Ε, B. 
2 Bernardakis. 


3 Ménage; ἀρίσταρχος. . . κλεάνθη -E, B. 
4 Emperius (cf. 925 p infra); προκαλεῖσθαι -E, B. 
5 Diibner. 


ὁ Diibner ; ἀνὴρ -E, B. 
7 Xylander (cf. 923 πὶ infra: φατε ὑμεῖς) : ἡμῶν -E, B. 
8 W. L. Bevan ; τῆς ἐποχῆς -E, B. 

4.20, VFL iy pe 112, frag. 6008 sthe miley Sateen 
Aristarchus,”’ appears in the list of Cleanthes’ writings given 
by Diogenes Laertius, vii. 174. For the theory of Aristarchus 
cf. Plutarch, Plat. Quaest. 1006 c; De Placitis 891 a= 
Aétius, ii. 24. 8 (Dox. Graeci, p. 355) ; Archimedes, Arenarius, 
54 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 922-923 


their interlocutors on the defensive lest they become 
the prosecutors. Well, me you will not to-day entice 
into defending the Stoics against your charges until 
I have called you people to account for turning the 
universe upside down.” ‘Thereupon Lucius laughed 
and said: “ Oh, sir, just don’t bring suit against us 
for impiety as Cleanthes thought that the Greeks 
ought to lay an action for impiety against Aristarchus 
the Samian on the ground that he was disturbing the 
hearth of the universe because he sought to save (the) 
phenomena by assuming that the heaven is at rest 
while the earth is revolving along the ecliptic and 
at the same time is rotating about its own axis.® 
We ὃ express no opinion of our own now ; but those 
who suppose that the moon is earth, why do they, 
my dear sir, turn things upside down any more than 
you © do who station the earth here suspended in the 
air? Yet the earth is a great deal larger than the 
moon @ according to the mathematicians who during 
the occurrences of eclipses and the transits of the 
moon through the shadow calculate her magnitude 
by the length of time that she is obscured.’ For the 
i. 1. 4-7 (Opera Omnia. ii, p. 218 Heiberg) ; Sextus Empiricus, 
aut x. 174; T. L. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 
301 ff. 

δ i.e. we Academics, the party which did in fact maintain 
that the moon is an earthy body. 

¢ i.e. you Stoics ; cf. Achilles, Isagogé, 4=S.V.F. ii, frag. 
555; p. 175. 36 ff. 

4 This would not have been admitted by most of the Stoics, 
who thought that the moon is larger than the earth; but in 
this Posidonius and possibly others disagreed with the earlier 
members of the school; cf. Aétius, ii. 26. 1 (Dox. Graeci, Ὁ. 
357 and p. 68, n. 1),and M. Adler, Diss. Phil. Vind. x (1910), 

alo 

e Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 1, § 80 (p. 146. 18 ff. Ziegler) ; Sim- 
plicius, De Caelo, p. 471. 6-11. 

55 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(923) yap σκιὰ τῆς γῆς ἐλάττων' ὑπὸ μείζονος τοῦ φω- 
/ > / \ ~ ~ aay ΠΣ \ Ἃ 
τίζοντος ἀνατείνει καὶ τῆς σκιᾶς αὐτῆς λεπτὸν ὃν 
τὸ ἄνω καὶ στενὸν οὐδ᾽ Ὅμηρον, ὥς φασιν, 
ἔλαθεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν νύκτα ᾿ θοὴν ᾿ ὀξύτητι τῆς σκιᾶς 

/ ς \ / > “ ς / 
προσηγόρευσεν: ὑπὸ τούτου δ᾽ ὅμως ἁλισκομένη 
A > / e / \ / A “πὰς Ὁ 
ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν ἡ σελήνη τρισὶ μόλις τοῖς αὑτῆς 
/ > / / \ ’ « ~ 
μεγέθεσιν ἀπαλλάττεται. σκόπει δὴ πόσων ἡ γῆ 
A > > \ > yr 5 ΄ 
σεληνῶν ἐστιν, εἰ σκιὰν ἀφίησιν 7° βραχυτάτη 
/ / > > “ «ε \ ~ / 
πλάτος τρισέληνον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὑπὲρ τῆς σελήνης 
\ / / \ \ ~ ~ ” > / 
μὴ πέσῃ δεδοίκατε περὶ δὲ τῆς γῆς ἴσως Αἰσχύλος 


1B; ἐλάττω -E. 
2 Turnebus ; ὄντα -E, B. 
3 Xylander ; ὥς φησὶν -E, B. 
4 Stephanus (1624) ; αὐτῆς -E, B. 
5 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ἡ -E, B. 


2 Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 2. 88 93-94 (p. 170. 11 ff. Ziegler) ; 
Theon of Smyrna, p. 197. 1 ff. (Hiller); Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 
11 (8), 51. . 

> Cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 410 pv. Homer uses the 
phrase 607) νύξ frequently (e.g. liad, x. 394 [ef. Leaf’s note 
ad loc.|, Odyssey, xii. 284). Another θοός, supposedly meaning 
“ἢ pointed,” “‘ sharp’ and cognate with ἐθόωσα in Odyssey, 
ix. 327, is used of certain islands in Odyssey, xv. 299 (ef. 
Strabo, viii. 350-351; Pseudo-Plutarch, De Vita et Poesi 
Homeri, 8, 21 [vii, p. 347. 19 ff. Bernardakis]). The latter 
passage so understood was used to support the hypothesis 
that 607 νύξ referred to the ‘“ sharpness’”’ of the earth’s 
shadow: cf. Heracliti Quaestiones Homericae, §§ 45-46 (p. 
67. 13 ff. Oelmann). Eustathius (Comment. ad Iliadem, 814. 
15 ff.) mentions besides this another astronomical inter- 
pretation of the phrase by Crates of Mallos. 

¢ For this temporal dative without ἐν cf. Theon of Smyrna, 
p. 194. 1-3 (Hiller). 


56 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 923 


shadow of the earth grows smaller the further it 
extends, because the body that casts the light is 
larger than the earth®; and that the upper part of 
the shadow itself is taper and narrow was recognized, 
as they say, even by Homer, who called night 
‘nimble ᾿ because of the ἡ sharpness ’ of the shadow.? 
Yet captured by this part in eclipses ὁ the moon 
barely escapes from it in a space thrice her own 
magnitude. Consider then how many times as large 
as the moon the earth is, if the earth casts a shadow 
which at its narrowest is thrice as broad as the moon.? 
All the same, you fear for the moon lest it fall ; 
whereas concerning the earth perhaps Aeschylus has 


4 Cf. De An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1028 vp where Plutarch 
ascribes to geometers the approximate calculation of three 
to one as the ratio of the earth’s diameter to that of the moon 
and of twelve to one as the ratio of the sun’s diameter to that 
of the earth, figures which agree roughly with those of Hip- 
parchus (t:1:s=1.4.124; cf. Heath, <Aristarchus of 
Samos, pp. 342 and 350 after Hultsch). Hipparchus, how- 
ever, considered the breadth of the shadow at the moon’s 
mean distance from the earth in eclipses to be 24 lunar 
diameters (Ptolemy, Syntazis, iv. 9 [i, p. 327. 1-4 Heiberg]), 
while Aristarchus, whose calculations of the moon’s diameter 
Plutarch quotes at 932 B infra, declared the shadow to be 
2 lunar diameters in breadth (cf. Aristarchus, Hypothesis 5 
[Heath, op. cit. p. 352. 13]; Pappus, Collectionis Quae 
Supersunt, ii, p. 554. 17-18 and p. 556. 14-17 [Hultsch]), the 
figure given by Cleomedes as well (pp. 146. 18-19 and 178. 
8-13 [Ziegler] ; cf. Geminus, Hlementa, ed. Manitius, p. 272). 
Plutarch may here simply have assumed that the ratio of 
the lunar diameter to the breadth of the shadow would be the 
same as the Hipparchean ratio of the lunar diameter to the 
diameter of the earth; but he may also have erroneously 
supposed that the time taken by the moon to enter the shadow, 
the time of complete obscuration, and the time taken to leave 
the shadow equal three diameters instead of two (cf. Cleo- 
medes, p. 146. 21-25 [Ziegler] and M. Adler, Diss. Phil. Vind. 
x [1910], p. 156, n. 2). 


57 


(923) 
0 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ὑμᾶς" πέπεικεν ws ὁ ΓΑτλας 


ἕστηκε, Kilov’ οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ χθονὸς 
” > / » > δι 4 
ὥμοις ἐρείδων, ἄχθος οὐκ εὐάγκαλον. 


oh τῇ μὲν σελήνῃ κοῦφος a ἀὴρ ὑποτρέχει καὶ στερεὸν 
ὄγκον οὐκ ἐχέγγυος ἐνεγκεῖν τὴν δὲ γῆν κατὰ 
Πίνδαρον ᾿ ἀδαμαντοπέδιλοι κίονες ᾿ περιέχουσι, 
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Φαρνάκης αὐτὸς μὲν ἐν ἀδείᾳ τοῦ 
πεσεῖν τὴν γῆν ἐστιν οἰκτίρει δὲ τοὺς ὑποκειμένους 
τῇ περιφορᾷ᾽ τῆς σελήνης Αἰθίοπας ἢ Ταπροβηνοὺς 
μὴ βάρος αὐτοῖς ἐμπέσῃ τοσοῦτον. καίτοι τῇ μὲν 
σελήνῃ βοήθεια πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεσεῖν ἡ κίνησις αὐτὴ 
καὶ τὸ ῥοιζῶδες" τῆς περιαγωγῆς, ὥσπερ ὅσα ταῖς 
σφενδόναις ἐντεθέντα τῆς καταφορᾶς κώλυσιν ἴσχει 
τὴν κύκλῳ περιδίνησιν. ἄγει γὰρ ἕκαστον ἡ κατὰ 
φύσιν κίνησις, ἂν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου μηδενὸς ἀποστρέφηται. 
διὸ τὴν σελήνην οὐκ ἄγει τὸ βάρος ὑπὸ τῆς περι- 
φορᾶς τὴν ῥοπὴν ἐκκρουόμενον. ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἤ ἴσως 
λόγον εἶχε θαυμάζειν μένουσαν αὐτὴν παντάπασιν 
ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ καὶ ἀτρεμοῦσαν. ‘ νῦν δ᾽ Bf σελήνη 
μὲν ἔχει “μεγάλην αἰτίαν τοῦ δεῦρο μὴ φέρεσθαι 
τὴν δὲ γῆν ἑτέρας κινήσεως ἄμοιρον οὖσαν εἰκὸς 
HV μόνῳ τῷ βαρύνοντι κινεῖν. βαρυτέρα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς 
σελήνης οὐχ ὅσῳ μείζων ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἅτε δὴ 
5: So ee Phanus (1624) ; ἡμᾶς -E, B. 


-Anon., Aldine, RJ. 94, Mss. of Aeschylus; κίων -E, B. 

8 H.C.; εἰ -E, B; καὶ -Wyttenbach after Amyot; ἐπεὶ 
-Adler. 

4 Editors ; οἰκτείρει -E, B. 

5 H.C. (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 139); petadopa 
-E, B. 

6 EF; ῥιζῶδες -B. 

7 Emperius (cf. 926 a and 939 a infra); ἄτρεπτος ἄν. -E, B. 

8 Bernardakis ; νῦν de -E, 


58 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 923 


persuaded you that Atlas 


Stands, staying on his back the prop of earth 
And sky, no tender burden to embrace.? 


Or, while under the moon there stretches air unsub- 
stantial and incapable of supporting a solid mass, the 
earth, as Pindar says, is encompassed by ᾿ steel-shod 
pillars °°; and therefore Pharnaces is himself without 
any fear that the earth may fall but is sorry for the 
Ethiopians or Taprobanians,° who are situated under 
the circuit of the moon, lest such a great weight fall 
upon them. Yet the moon is saved from falling by 
its very motion and the rapidity of its revolution, just 
as missiles placed in slings are kept from falling by 
being whirled around in a circle.? For each thing is 
governed by its natural motion unless it be diverted 
by something elses That is why the moon is not 
governed by its weight : the weight has its influence 
frustrated by the rotatory motion. Nay, there would 
be more reason perhaps to wonder if she were abso- 
lutely unmoved and stationary like the earth. As 
it is, while (the) moon has good cause for not moving 
in this direction, the influence of weight alone might 
reasonably move the earth, since it has no part in any 
other motion; and the earth is heavier than the 
moon not merely in proportion to its greater size but 


* Aeschylus, Prometheus Vinct, 351-352 (Smyth). 

ὃ Pindar, frag. 88 (Bergk)=79 (Bowra). 

° 7.6. the Sinhalese ; cf. Strabo, ii. 1. 14, chap. 72 and xv. 
1. 14, chap. 690; Pliny, Nat. Hist. vi. 22 (24). 

4 Cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, 284 a 24-26 and 295 a 16-21 (on 
Empedocles [Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic 
Philosophy, p. 204, n. 234]). Plutarch himself in Lysander, 
xli. 3-4 (439 Ὁ) ascribes to Anaxagoras the notion that the 
heavenly bodies are kept from falling by the speed of their 
circular motion. 


59 


(923) 
E 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


διὰ θερμότητα καὶ πύρωσιν ἐλαφρᾶς γεγενημένης. 
ὅλως δ᾽ ἔοικεν ἐξ ὧν λέγεις ἡ σελήνη μᾶλλον, εἰ 
πῦρ ἐστι, γῆς δεῖσθαι καὶ ὕλης ἐν ἣ βέβηκε καὶ 
προσπέφυκε καὶ συνέχει καὶ ζωπυρεῖ τὴν δύναμιν" 
οὐ γὰρ ἔστι πῦρ χωρὶς ὕλης διανοηθῆναι σῳζόμενον 

~ / ¢ al ΝΜ / \ «ὔ 
γῆν δέ φατε ὑμεῖς ἄνευ βάσεως καὶ ῥίζης δια- 

, γ3, ἢ a / \ a. 59, 5 ε , 
μένειν. πάνυ μὲν οὖν᾽᾽ εἶπεν ὁ Φαρνάκης 
{{ \ >, A \ \ ΄ / ” v7 

TOV οἰκεῖον Kal κατὰ φύσιν τόπον ἔχουσαν, ὅσπερ 

~ ee / 
αὐτῇ," TOV μέσον. οὗτος γάρ ἐστι περὶ OV ἀντερείδει 
πάντα τὰ βάρη ῥέποντα καὶ φέρεται καὶ συννεύει 
/ « > ” / ~ A / 

πανταχόθεν: ἡ δ᾽ ἄνω χώρα πᾶσα, Kav τι δέξηται 
γεῶδες ὑπὸ βίας ἀναρριφέν, εὐθὺς ἐκθλίβει δεῦρο 
μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀφίησιν ἧ πέφυκεν οἰκείᾳ ῥοπῇ κατα- 
pepopevov. 

rv \ aa 9 \ ~ A / / > / 

7. Πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ ἐγὼ τῷ Λευκίῳ χρόνον ἐγγενέσθαι 
βουλόμενος ἀναμιμνησκομένῳ τὸν Θέωνα καλέσας 


1 Aldine, Basiliensis ; E and B have ἃ question-mark here. 
2 Von Arnim (S.V.F. ii, p. 195); ὥσπερ αὐτὴ -E, B. 





α Here Lucius assumes the Stoic theory of the composition 
of the moon in order to rebut the Stoic objections. 

’ Cf. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. vii. 1. 7: “. . . magni fuere 
viri, qui sidera crediderunt ex duro concreta et ignem alienum 
pascentia. ‘nam per se,’ inquiunt, ‘ flamma diffugeret, nisi 
aliquid haberet, quod teneret et a quo teneretur, conglo- 
batamque nec stabili inditam corpori, profecto iam mundus 
turbine suo dissipasset.’ ”’ 

¢ Of. Aristotle’s remark (Meteorology, 353 a 34-b 5) about 
the ancient θεολόγοι who assumed ῥίζαι γῆς καὶ θαλάττης and 
see Hesiod, Theogony, 728; Aeschylus, Prometheus Vincet. 
1046-1047; and the ‘‘ Orphic”’ lines quoted by Proclus, 


60 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 923 


still more, inasmuch as the moon has, of course, 
become light through the action of heat and fire.” 
In short, your own statements seem to make the 
moon, if it is fire, stand in greater need of earth, that 
is of matter to serve it as a foundation, as something 
to which to adhere, as something to lend it coherence, 
and as something that can be ignited by it, for it is 
impossible to imagine fire being maintained without 
fuel,? but you people say that earth does abide 
without root or foundation.” © “ Certainly it does,” 
said Pharnaces, “ in occupying the proper and natural 
place that belongs to it, the middle, for this is the 
place about which all weights in their natural in- 
clination press against one another and towards 
which they move and converge from every direction, 
whereas all the upper space, even if it receive some- 
thing earthy which has been forcibly hurled up into 
it, straightway extrudes it into our region or rather 
lets it go where its proper inclination causes it natur- 
ally to descend.” @ 

7. At this—for I wished Lucius to have time to 
collect his thoughts—I called to Theon. “ Which of 
In Timaeum, 211 ς (ii, p. 231. 27-28 [Diehl])= Kern, Orphi- 
corum Fragmenta, 168. 29-30 (p. 202). The phrase pila καὶ 
βάσις is applied to the earth itself in a different sense by 
** Timaeus Locrus ” (97 £). For the ascription to Xenophanes 
of the notion that the earth ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον ἐρρίζωται cf. Xeno- 
phanes, frag. A 47 (i, pp. 125-126 [Diels- Kranz)). 

¢ =8.V.F. ii, p. 195, frag. 646. This is the doctrine of 
proper place and natural motion, originally Aristotelian and 
ascribed to Aristotle in De Defectu Oraculorum, 424 8 but 
adopted also by the Stoics (cf. S.V.F. ii, p. 162. 14-19; p. 
169. 8-11; p. 175. 16-35; p. 178. 12-15); it should not be 
confused, however, as Raingeard confuses it, with the Stoic 
doctrine that the universe itself is in the middle of the void 
(De Defectu Oraculorum, 425 p-r, De Stoicorum Repug- 
nantiis, 1054 c-D). 


61 


(923) ‘ 


9 


4 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ΝΜ 


»Μ {{ / » ~ ~ « 
ἔφην “᾿ὦ Θέων εἴρηκε τῶν τραγικῶν ὡς 
ἰατροὶ 
\ a / / / }) 
πικρὰν πικροῖς κλύζουσι φαρμάκοις χολήν; 
ἀποκριναμένου δὲ τοῦ Θέωνος ὅτι Σοφοκλῆς, “᾿ καὶ 
/ +) φ (Α εἴ > > / > / / 
δοτέον ᾿᾿ εἶπον “ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης ἐκείνοις. φιλοσόφων 
> » > / ἋἋ | / / > ’ὔ 
δ᾽ οὐκ ἀκουστέον ἂν τὰ παράδοξα παραδόξοις ἀμύ- 
/ \ / \ \ / 
νεσθαι βούλωνται Kal μαχόμενοι πρὸς τὰ θαυμάσια 
τῶν δογμάτων ἀτοπώτερα καὶ θαυμασιώτερα πλάτ- 
τωσιν, ὥσπερ οὗτοι τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον φορὰν εἰσ- 
/ - / / κι ” 5, ἐμὰ A 
ἄγουσιν. % τί παράδοξον οὐκ ἔνεστιν; οὐχὶ τὴν 
γῆν σφαῖραν εἶναι τηλικαῦτα βάθη καὶ ὕψη καὶ 
ἀνωμαλίας ἔχουσαν; οὐκ ἀντίποδας οἰκεῖν ὥσπερ 
θρῖπας" ἢ γαλεώτας τραπέντας" ἄνω τὰ κάτω τῇ γῇ 
, 3 elRA > > \ \ \ > \ 
προσισχομένους;) ἡμᾶς δ᾽ αὐτοὺς μὴ πρὸς ὀρθὰς 
/ > \ / > / > / 
βεβηκότας ἀλλὰ πλαγίους ἐπιμένειν ἀπονεύοντας 


1 Diibner ; θρίπας -E, B. 
* Basiliensis ; τραπέντα -E, B. 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 (implied by version of Xylander) ; 
προϊσχομένους -E, B. 





« Sophocles, frag. 770 (Nauck?). The verse is quoted with 
variations at De Cohibenda Ira, 463 ¥, and De Tranquillitate 
Animi, 468 B. 

» Cf. Aristotle’s remark, De Caelo, 294 a 20-21: τὸ δὲ τὰς 
περὶ τούτου λύσεις μὴ μᾶλλον ἀτόπους εἶναι δοκεῖν τῆς ἀπορίας, 
θαυμάσειεν ἄν τις. 

¢ This objection to the Peripatetic and Stoic theory that 
the sphericity of the earth is a necessary consequence of the 
natural motion of earth “‘ downwards ”’ to the centre of the 
universe (Aristotle, De Caelo, 297 a 8- 23; Strabo, i. 1. 20, 


62 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 923-924 


the tragic poets was it, Theon,” I asked, “ who said 
that physicians 


With bitter drugs the bitter bile purge ? ἢ" 


Theon replied that it was Sophocles.” “ Yes,” I said, 
“and we have of necessity to allow them this pro- 
cedure ; but to philosophers one should not listen if 
they desire to repulse paradoxes with paradoxes and 
in struggling against opinions that are amazing fabri- 
cate others that are more amazing and outlandish,” as 
these people do in introducing their ἡ motion to the 
centre.’ What paradox is not involved in this doctrine ἢ 
Not the one that the earth is a sphere although it 
contains such great depths and heights and irregu- 
larities ἢ 5 Not that people live on the opposite hemi- 
sphere clinging to the earth like wood-worms or geckos 
turned bottomside up ἢ @—and that we ourselves in 
standing remain not at right angles to the earth but 
at an oblique angle, leaning from the perpendicular 


chap. 11; Adrastus in Theon of Smyrna, p. 122. 1-16 [Hiller]) 
was often answered (cf. Dicaearchus in Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 
65. 162; Adrastus in Theon of Smyrna, pp. 124. 7-127. 23, 
using arguments from Archimedes, Eratosthenes, and Dicae- 
archus ; Cleomedes, i. 56 [p. 102. 9-20 Ziegler] ; Alexander 
in Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 546. 15-23; Alexander, De Miz- 
tione, p. 237. 5-15 [Bruns]). Plutarch, who defends Plato for 
constructing the spherical earth of molecules that are cubes 
on the ground that no material object can be a perfect sphere 
(Quaest. Plat. 1004 B-c), probably did not intend this or the 
subsequent paradoxes to be taken too seriously. Lamprias 
is simply riding Pharnaces as hard as he can, using any argu- 
ment, good or bad, to make him appear ridiculous. 

¢ Cf. Lucretius, i. 1052- 1067 in his argument against the 
Stoic ‘‘ motion to the centre.” Plutarch mentions the anti- 
podes in connection with the Stoics in De Stoicorum Repug- 
nantiis, 1050 5. In De Herodoti Malignitate, 869 c it is said 
that *‘ some ”’ say that there are antipodes. 


63 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


σ ¢ / 
(924) ὥσπερ οἱ μεθύοντες; οὐ μύδρους χιλιοταλάντους 
ὃ \ 10 ~ ~ / a ᾽ / 
va βάθους τῆς γῆς φερομένους, ὅταν ἐξίκωνται 
\ ~ 
πρὸς TO μέσον, ἵστασθαι μηδενὸς ἀπαντῶντος μηδ᾽ 
¢ / 5 Ἁ Cf / / 1 ἢ, / 
ὑπερείδοντος εἰ δὲ ῥύμῃ κάτω φερόμενοι' TO μέσον 
> / 
B ὑπερβάλλοιεν αὖθις ὀπίσω στρέφεσθαι καὶ ava- 
/ > ~ / ~ 
κάμπτειν ἀφ᾽ αὑτῶν;" οὐ τμήματα δοκῶν ἀποπρησ- 
θ / 3 ~ ΄ « 7 \ / = \ 
ἔνταῦ τῆς γῆς ἑκατέρωθεν μὴ φέρεσθαι κάτω διὰ 
ey ite: \ , \ \ A ” 
παντὸς" ἀλλὰ προσπίπτοντα πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἔξωθεν 
” 5 = \ > / \ \ 
εἴσω" διωθεῖσθαι καὶ ἀποκρύπτεσθαι περὶ τὸ 
/ a 5 Ce A 7ὔ “ὃ / / 
μέσον; ov ῥεῦμα λάβρον ὕδατος κάτω φερόμενον, 
> \ \ / ” ~ “ >’ x / 
εἰ πρὸς TO μέσον ἔλθοι σημεῖον ὅπερ αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν 
> -. 
ἀσώματον, ἵστασθαι περικρεμαννύμενον" (7) κύκλῳ 
C περιπολεῖν,͵ ἄπαυστον αἰώραν καὶ ἀκατάπαυστον 
>] 7 ϑ \ \ ~ v / / 
αἰωρούμενον; οὐδὲ yap ψευδῶς ἔνια τούτων βιά- 
5) ~ 2 / 
σαιτο av Tis αὑτὸν" els τὸ δυνατὸν τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ 
1 Xylander : φερομένου -E, B. 
2 Bernardakis ; ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν -E, B. 
3 Ἢ. C.; ἀποπρισθέντα -E, B. 
4 Bernardakis ; διαπαντός -E, B. 
δ. Bernardakis (ἔσω -Wyttenbach, Emperius ; ef. Xylander’s 
“ pertrudi intro ’’) ; ἴσως -E, B. 
6. Emperius ; περικεραννύμενον -E, B. 


7 Emperius : κύκλῳ περὶ πόλιν -E 3 κύκλῳ περὶ πόλλον -B. 
8 Wyttenbach ; αὐτὸν -Εἰ, B. 





« Cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, 296 Ὁ 18-21 and 297 Ὁ 17-21: 
the courses of bodies falling to the earth form equal angles 
with the horizontal plane at the point of contact and are not 
parallel. So, Lamprias argues, men standing upright on 
the earth would not be parallel to one another but all in con- 
verging on the centre would deviate from the “ absolute ”’ 
perpendicular. 

>’ Probably not aeroliths, as Raingeard supposes, but 


64 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 924 


like drunken men?* Not that incandescent masses 
of forty tons ὃ falling through the depth of the earth 
stop when they arrive at the centre, though nothing 
encounter or support them ; and, if in their down- 
ward motion the impetus should carry them past the 
centre, they swing back again and return of them- 
selves? Not that pieces of meteors burnt out on 
either side of the earth do not move downwards 
continually but falling upon the surface of the earth 
force their way into it from the outside and conceal 
themselves about the centre ἢ © Not that a turbulent 
stream of water, if in flowing downwards it should 
reach the middle point, which they themselves call 
incorporeal,? stops suspended (or) moves round about 
it, oscillating in an incessant and perpetual see-saw ἢ ¢ 
Some of these a man could not even mistakenly force 


incandescent boulders such as are thrown up by volcanoes ; 
for μύδροι in this sense ef. [Aristotle], De Mundo, 395 Ὁ 22-28 ; 
Strabo, vi. 2.8, chap. 2743. vi.-2. 10, chap. 2753 xii. 4. 11, 
chap. 628. For the falling of great boulders within the earth 
cf. Lucretius, vi. 536-550, and Seneca, Nat. Quaest. vi. 22.2; 
but Plutarch probably had in mind a subterranean geo- 
graphy such as that of Phaedo, 111 Ὁ ff., of which the next 
sentence but one contains an explicit reminiscence. 

¢ For the text and interpretation of this sentence cf. Class. 
Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 139-140. 

4 Cf. 926 B infra. According to the Stoics the limits of 
bodies are incorporeal and therefore in the strict sense non- 
existent (De Communibus Notitiis, 1080 ©; cf. 1081 B and 
S.V.F. ii, p. 159, frag. 488), since only the corporeal exists 
(S.V.F. ii, p. 115, frag. 320 and p. 117, frag. 329). Only 
corporeal existence, moreover, can produce an effect or be 
affected (De Communibus Notitiis, 1073 π, cf. S.V.F. ii, p. 
118, frag. 336 and p. 123, frag. 363). How then can the 
incorporeal centre have any effect upon corporeal entities ? 

ε Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 111 E—112 π, which is certainly the 
source of Plutarch’s figure, and Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s 
account in Meteorology, 355 b 32—356 a 19. 


VOL. XII D 65 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


924 aA A , > » 1 , \2 
(924) καταστῆσαι. τοῦτο yap ἐστι τἄνω' κάτω Kal 
/ / > ~ ~ 

πάντα τραπέμπαλιν᾽" εἶναι, τῶν ἄχρι τοῦ μέσου 
/ ~ 5» \ / Ss / 
κάτω τῶν δ᾽ ὑπὸ TO μέσον αὖ πάλιν ἄνω γιγνο- 
/ σ 5 ” / ~ ~ \ / 
μένων. ὥστ᾽, εἴ Tis συμπαθείᾳ τῆς γῆς TO μέσον 
n~ »” / \ \ > / 7 \ 
αὐτῆς ἔχων σταίη περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν, ἅμα καὶ τὴν 
\ \ / 7 
κεφαλὴν ἄνω καὶ τοὺς πόδας ἄνω ἔχειν τὸν αὐτόν" 
5 / 
Kav pev* διασκάπτῃ τὸν ἐπέκεινα τόπον, ἀνακύπτον 
> κι \ 7 » δ 5 \ , » 
αὐτοῦ τὸ (KaTw ἀνων" εἶναι καὶ κάτω ἄνωθεν 
σ \ > / > \ \ / 
ἕλκεσθαι τὸν ἀνασκαπτόμενον" εἰ δὲ δὴ τούτῳ τις 
5 \ ~ \ > / Ψ / 
ἀντιβεβηκὼς νοοῖτο, τοὺς ἀμφοτέρων ἅμα πόδας 
\ / 
ἄνω γίγνεσθαι καὶ λέγεσθαι. 
/ / \ / 
8. Τοιούτων μέντοι καὶ τοσούτων παραδοξολο- 
κ“ 6 » \ Ad δ 7 LAAG θ ~ 
Ὁ γιῶν᾽ od pa Δία πήραν' ἀλλὰ θαυματοποιοῦ τινος 
/ 
ἀποσκευὴν Kal πυλαίαν κατανωτισάμενοι καὶ παρέλ- 
ery \ , 8 " \ / 
κοντες ἑτέρους φασὶ γελοιάζειν᾽ ἄνω τὴν σελήνην, 
~ > / U / ᾽ 
γῆν οὖσαν, ἐνιδρύοντας" οὐχ ὅπου τὸ μέσον ἐστί. 
> ~ ~ >] \ > 7 
καίτοι γ᾽ εἰ πᾶν σῶμα ἐμβριθὲς εἰς ταὐτὸ συννεύει 
1 Jackson, who would have reconstituted the words as an 
hexameter : τἄνω {πάντα κάτω Kal πάντα τραπέμπαλιν εἶναι (cf. 
Prickard’s 1911 translation, p. 54); τὰ ἄνω -E, B. 
2 Wyttenbach ; κἂν -E, B. 
3 Bernardakis (cf. Meineke, Philologus, xiv, p. 5 on 936 "Ὁ 
infra) Η τραπέντα πάλιν Ἢ, 
Leonicus ; κἂν μὴ -E, Β. 
H.C. ; τὸ vac. 8-E, 7-B. 
E ; παραδόξων λογιῶν -B. 
Turnebus ; πεῖραν -Εἰ, B. 


Turnebus ; πελάζειν -E, B. 
Kaltwasser ; ἐνιδρύοντες -E, B. 


- 


oon ὅ᾽ ὧν 





« Of, Phaedo, 112 © 1-3. By introducing the conventional 
phrase ὑπὸ τὸ μέσον, which really begs the question, Lamprias 
makes the notion appear to be a ridiculous self-contradiction. 

ὑ That συμπαθείᾳ τῆς γῆς, which has given rise to many 


66 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 924 


himself to conceive as possible. For this amounts 
to ‘ upside down ᾿ and ‘ all things topsy-turvy,’ every- 
thing as far as the centre being ‘ down’ and every- 
thing under the centre in turn being ‘up.’% The 
result is that, if a man should so coalesce with the 
earth ὃ that its centre is at his navel, the same person 
at the same time has his head up and his feet up too. 
Moreover, if he dig through the further side, his 
(bottom) in emerging is (up), and the man digging 
himself ‘up’ is pulling himself ‘down’ from ‘above’ ¢; 
and, if someone should then be imagined to have 
gone in the opposite direction to this man, the feet 
of both of them at the same time turn out to be ‘up’ 
and are so called. 

8. Nevertheless, though of tall tales of such a kind 
and number they have shouldered and lugged in— 
not a wallet-full, by heaven, but some juggler’s pack 
and hotchpotch, still they say ? that others are play- 
ing the buffoon by placing the moon, though it is 
earth, on high and not where the centre is. Yet if 
all heavy body converges to the same point and is 


conjectures, need mean no more than this is proved by Doz. 
Graeci, p. 317 Ὁ 14-16: τῆς τε τῶν ὄντων συμπαθείας Kal τῆς 
τῶν σωμάτων ἀλληλουχίας. For the figure used here cf. Aris- 
totle, De Caelo, 285 a 27-b 5, and Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 389. 
8-24 and p. 391. 33 ff. The most famous later parallel is the 
position of Lucifer in Dante’s Inferno, xxxiv. 76-120. 

¢ i.e. his feet emerge first ; and they, his bottom part, are 
“up.” In digging himself “ up ”’ relatively to the surface 
through which he emerges, he is with reference to himself 
pulling himself not “up” to a position above his head but 
“down” to a position below his feet. The paradox rests 
upon the assumption that head and feet are respectively 
“absolute up” and “‘ absolute down ἢ for man (cf. Aristotle, 
De Incessu Animal. 705 a 26—706 b 16, and Parva Nat. 
468 a 1-12). 

¢ =S.V.F. ii, p. 195, frag. 646. 


67 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(924) καὶ “πρὸς τὸ αὑτοῦ" μέσον ἀντερείδει πᾶσι τοῖς 
μορίοις, οὐχ ὡς μέσον οὖσα τοῦ παντὸς ἡ γῆ μᾶλ- 
λον ἢ ὡς ὅλον οἰκειώσεται μέρη αὑτῆς" ὄντα τὰ 
βάρη καὶ τεκμήριον {τὸ κατωφερὲς)" ἔσται τῶν 

BE ῥεπόντων οὐ τῇ (γῆν τῆς μεσότητος πρὸς τὸν 
κόσμον ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν γῆν κοινωνίας τινὸς καὶ 
συμφυΐας τοῖς ᾿ἀπωσμένοις αὐτῆς εἶτα πάλιν κατα- 
φερομένοις. ὡς γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφει 
τὰ μέρη ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε, καὶ ἡ γῆ τὸν λίθον 
ὥσπερ (αὐτῇ προσήκοντα δέχεται κατωφερῆ᾽ 
πρὸς οἰκεῖον. ὅθεν ἑνοῦται τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ συμ- 


᾿ Bernardakis (implied in versions of Xylander and 
Kepler) ; αὐτοῦ -E, B. 

wee. (implied in versions of Xylander and Kepler) ; 
αὐτῆς -E, 

85. H.C. (cf. S.V.F. ii, p. 175. 34); τεκμήριον vac. 12-E, 
14-B. 

4 Von Arnim; γῇ in place of τῆς of E, B -Madvig. 

5 H.C. ; ὥσπερ vac. 4-E, 8-B (at end of line). 

6. Wyttenbach ; καὶ φέρει -E, B. 

7 H.C. (πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον -Emperius), cf. οἰκείᾳ ῥοπῇ Kata- 
φερόμενον (923 F supra); πρὸς ἐκεῖνον -E, 


α Lamprias refers directly to the words of Pharnaces at 
923 E-F supra. Cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1055 Ai εἰ 
γὰρ αὐτός γε νεύειν ἐπὶ τὸ αὑτοῦ μέσον ἀεὶ πέφυκε καὶ τὰ μέρη 
πρὸς τοῦτο κατατείνειν πανταχόθεν. 

> That τῶν ῥεπόντων can stand alone in this sense, pace 
Adler (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, p. 96), is proved by Aristotle, De 
Caelo, 312 Ὁ 94. 

¢ Aristotle (De Caelo, 296 b 9-25) asserted that heavy, 
4.€. earthy, objects move to the centre of the universe and so 
only ‘ accidentally "ἢ to the centre of the earth. The Stoics 
distinguished the cosmos as ὅλον from τὸ πᾶν, which is the 
cosmos plus the infinite void encompassing it (S.V./*. ii, p. 
167, frags, 522-524), putting the cosmos in the centre of the 
πᾶν and explaining this as the result of the motion of all 
things to the centre of the latter (S.V.F. ii, pp. 174-175, 
frags. 552-554; cf. note d on 923 F supra) but stating that 


68 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 924 


compressed in all its parts upon its own centre,? it 
is no more as centre of the sum of things than as 
a whole that the earth would appropriate to herself 
the heavy bodies that are parts of herself ; and (the 
downward tendency) of falling bodies” proves not 
that the (earth) is in the centre of the cosmos but 
that those bodies which when thrust away from the 
earth fall back to her again have some affinity and 
cohesion with her.° For as the sun attracts to itself 
the parts of which it consists ὦ so the earth too accepts 
as (her) own the stone’ that has properly a down- 
ward tendency, and consequently every such thing 


within the cosmos those things that have weight, 7.e. water 
and earth, move naturally down, 1.6. to the centre (δ. V.F. ii, 
p. 175. 16-35, frag. 555). Nevertheless, Chrysippus’s own 
words could be used to show that the natural motion to the 
centre must belong to the parts of the universe qua parts of 
the whole and not because of their own nature (cf. De Stoi- 
corum Repugnantiis, 1054 —e—1055 c); and with the very 
word οἰκειώσεται Lamprias turns against the Stoics their own 
doctrine of οἰκείωσις (cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1038 B 
=S2V.F'. li, p. 43, frag. 179). 

4 According to Reinhardt (Kosmos und Sympathie, pp. 
173-177) the source of Plutarch’s argument must be Posi- 
donius ; but none of the passages cited contains any parallel 
to this statement concerning the sun, for references to the 
attractive power of the sun over the other planets (Reinhardt, 
op. cit. p. 58, n. 23 cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. xxvii [1932], 
pp. 122 ff.) are irrelevant. There may rather have been a 
connection between this notion and the doctrine of Cleanthes 
referred to in De Communibus Notitiis, 1075 p=S.V.F. i, 
p. 114, frag. 510. 

¢ This is not a reference to aeroliths as Raingeard and 
Kronenberg suppose nor to the imaginary stone in inter- 
cosmic space (De Defectu Oraculorum, 425 c) as Adler be- 
lieves, but to any γεῶδές τι ὑπὸ βίας avappidev, in the words of 
Pharnaces (923 F supra); cf. Aristotle’s use of ὁ λίθος in the 
statement of his principle of natural motion (Hth. Nic. 1103 a 
19-22). 


69 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(924 / \ ee a , > δέ 
φύεται πρὸς αὐτὴν τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον. εἰ δέ 
΄σ a a > 
τι τυγχάνει σῶμα TH γῇ μὴ προσνενεμημένον ἀπ 
ἀρχῆς, μηδ᾽ ἀπεσπασμένον ἀλλά που" καθ᾽ αὑτὸ 
’ὔ ” 0. " \ / ¢ A μ᾿). > “-“ 
F σύστασιν ἔσχεν ἰδίαν καὶ φύσιν ὡς φαῖεν ἂν ἐκεῖνοι 
> A 
τὴν σελήνην, TL κωλύει χωρὶς εἶναι καὶ μένειν περὶ 
αὑτὸ" τοῖς αὑτοῦ" πεπιεσμένον μέρεσι καὶ συμ- 
, « a > 
πεπεδημένον; οὔτε yap ἡ γῆ μέσον οὖσα δείκνυται 
~ \ ~ ~ ~ 
τοῦ παντὸς ἥ TE πρὸς τὴν γῆν τῶν ἐνταῦθα συν- 
A \ / e 
έρεισις" καὶ σύστασις ὑφηγεῖται τὸν τρόπον ᾧ 
? - 7 / > / 
μένειν τὰ ἐκεῖ συμπεσόντα πρὸς τὴν σελήνην εἰκός 
>? « \ / \ / \ / / 
ἐστιν. ὃ δὲ πάντα τὰ γεώδη καὶ βαρέα συνελαύνων 
>’ \ ~ 
εἰς μίαν χώραν Kal μέρη ποιῶν ἑνὸς σώματος, OVX 
~ A / \ > / 
ὁρῶ διὰ τί τοῖς κούφοις τὴν αὐτὴν ἀνάγκην οὐκ 
IA ’ 
ἀνταποδίδωσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐᾷ χωρὶς εἶναι συστάσεις 
/ \ / 
πυρὸς τοσαύτας καὶ οὐ πάντας εἰς ταὐτὸ" συνάγων 
~ ” A \ ~ \ 
τοὺς ἀστέρας σαφῶς οἴεται δεῖν καὶ σῶμα κοινὸν 
εἶναι τῶν ἀνωφερῶν" καὶ φλογοειδῶν ἁπάντων. 
5 7 >. ΄ὔ / 
925 9. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἥλιον μὲν ἀπλέτους μυριάδας ἀπέχειν 
~ ~ 4 εν / > 
Ths ἄνω περιφορᾶς hate’? εἶπον “ ὦ φίλε ᾿Απολλω- 
Aldine, Basiliensis ; ἀπαρχῆς -E, B. 
Stephanus (1624); τοῦ -E, B. 
Wyttenbach (implied in Kepler’s version) ; αὐτὸ -E, B. 

4 Wyttenbach (implied in versions of Xylander, Amyot, 
and Kepler) ; αὐτοῦ -E, B. 

5 Wyttenbach ; συναίρεσις -E, B. 

6 Wyttenbach (implied in versions of Amyot and Kepler) ; 
τοῦτο -, B. 

7 E, B; καὶ φῶς -Adler after Wyttenbach; πάντας . - - 
σαφῶς deleted as marginal note by Sandbach (Cambridge 
Philological Society, 1943). 

8 Turnebus, Xylander ; ἀναφορῶν -E, B. 


own 





4 The men referred to in 924 p, ἑτέρους. . . ἄνω τὴν σελήνην, 
γῆν οὖσαν, evidpvovtas, whom the Stoics attack and among 


70 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 924-925 


ultimately unites and coheres with her. If there is 
a body, however, that was not originally allotted to 
the earth or detached from it but has somewhere 
independently a constitution and nature of its own, 
as those men® would say of the moon, what is to 
hinder it from being permanently separate in its own 
place, compressed and bound together by its own 
parts? For it has not been proved that the earth 
is the centre of the sum of things,’ and the way in 
which things in our region press together and con- 
centrate upon the earth suggests how in all prob- 
ability things in that region converge upon the moon 
and remain there. The man who drives together 
into a single region all earthy and heavy things and 
makes them part of a single body—I do not see for 
what reason he does not apply the same compulsion 
to light objects in their turn but allows so many 
separate concentrations of fire and, since he does not 
collect all the stars together, clearly does not think 
that there must also be a body common to all things 
that are fiery and have an upward tendency. 

9. Now,” said I, “my dear Apollonides, you 
mathematicians ° say that the sun is an immense 
distance from the upper circumference and that above 





whom are Lamprias and Lucius themselves and “ our 
comrade ” (921 F). 

> i.e. even if it is the centre of our cosmos; ef. De Defectu 
Oraculorum, 425 a-E, where concerning the possibility of a 
multiplicity of universes in τὸ πᾶν Plutarch points out that 
even on the hypothesis of natural motion and proper place 
up, down, and centre would apply separately within each 
cosmos, there could be no centre of τὸ πᾶν, and the laws of 
motion in any one universe could not affect objects in any 
other or hypothetical objects in intercosmic space. 

¢ This is implied by the second person plural addressed 
to Apollonides, cf. 925 B infra and 920 τ. 921 c supra. 


71 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(925) νίδη καὶ Dwoddpov ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ UridBovra’ καὶ 
τοὺς ἄλλους πλάνητας ὑφιεμένους τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν 
\ \ > / > / / / 

Kal πρὸς ἀλλήλους ev διαστάσεσι μεγάλαις φέρεσθαι 

τοῖς δὲ βαρέσι" καὶ γεώδεσιν οὐδεμίαν οἴεσθε τὸν 

κόσμον εὐρυχωρίαν παρέχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ διά- 

~ ~ , ~ 

στασιν. ὁρᾶτε ὅτι γελοῖόν ἐστιν εἰ γῆν οὐ φήσομεν 

εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ὅτι. τῆς κάτω χώρας ἀφέστηκεν 

Β ἄστρον δὲ φήσομεν ὁρῶντες ἀπωσμένην τῆς ἄνω 

περιφορᾶς μυριάσι σταδίων τοσαύταις ὥσπερ <eis)* 

υθόν τινα καταδεδυκυῖαν. τῶν μέν γ᾽ ἄστρων 

κατωτέρω τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὅσον οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι 

, Z 349959 , ePass \ \ 

μέτρον" ἀλλ ἐπιλείπουσιν ὑμᾶς" τοὺς “μαθηματικοὺς 

ἐκλογιζομένους οἱ ἀριθμοί, τῆς δὲ γῆς τρόπον τινὰ 
ψαύει καὶ περιφερομένη πλησίον 


“ ε , "» aN 6 
ἅρματος ws πέρι χνοίη ἑλίσσεται 
φησὶν ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς 


ἥ τε παρ᾽ ἄκρην 
΄ > ΄ 7 
ζνύσσαν ἐλαυνομένη). 


οὐδὲ γὰρ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτῆς ὑπερβάλλει πολλάκις ἐπὶ 
μικρὸν αἰρομένην" τῷ παμμέγεθες εἶναι τὸ φωτίζον 
ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἔοικεν ἐν χρῷ καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν ἀγκάλαις 
τῆς γῆς περιπολεῖν ὥστ᾽ ἀντιφράττεσθαι πρὸς τὸν 
Ο ἥλιον ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς μὴ ὑπεραίρουσα τὸν σκιερὸν καὶ 
χθόνιον καὶ νυκτερινὸν᾽ τοῦτον τόπον ὃς γῆς κλῆρός 


1 E, B; for the form see note on 941 c infra. 

2 Basiliensis ; ; βαθέσι -F, B. 

3 Wyttenbach (implied in versions of Xylander and 
Amyot), ef. 943 D: eis βυθὸν . . . καταδυομένας. 

4 Ἔ, B®; dow... μέτρῳ -Β!. 5. Xylander; ἡμᾶς -E, B. 

β Panzerbieter ; - ἅρματος ὥσπερ ἴχνος GieNiepeeas -E, B. 

1 Diels ; ἥτε περὶ ἄκραν vac. 18-E, 26-B. 


72 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 925 


the sun Venus and Mercury and the other planets @ 
revolve lower than the fixed stars and at great in- 
tervals from one another ; but you think that in the 
cosmos there is provided no scope and extension for 
heavy and earthy objects. You see that it is ridicu- 
lous for us to deny that the moon is earth because she 
stands apart from the nether region and yet to call 
her a star although we see her removed so many 
thousands of miles from the upper circumference as 
if plunged (into) a pit. So far beneath the stars is 
she that the distance cannot be expressed, but you 
mathematicians in trying to calculate it run short 
of numbers; she practically grazes the earth and 
revolving close to it 


Whirls like a chariot’s axle-box about, 
Empedocles says,” 
That skims <the post in passing). 


Frequently she does not even surmount the earth’s 
hadow, though it extends but a little way because 
the illuminating body is very large ; but she seems 
to revolve so close, almost within arm’s reach of the 
earth, as to be screened by it from the sun unless she 
rises above this shadowy, terrestrial, and nocturnal 
place which is earth’s estate. Therefore we must 


2 For the order of the planets cf. Dreyer, History of the 
Planetary Systems, pp. 168-170, and Boyancé, Etudes sur 
le Songe de Scipion, pp. 59-65; the order here given is not 
the one adopted by most of the astronomers of Plutarch’s 
time, by the later Stoics, or in all probability by Posidonius. 

“ Empedocles, frag. B 46 (i, p. 331 [Diels-Kranz]). 


8 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94, and implied in versions of 
Amyot and Kepler ; αἰρομένη -E, B 


/ 
9. νυκτερίνον -B ; νυκτέριον -E. 


73 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(925) ἐστι. διὸ λεκτέον οἶμαι θαρροῦντας ἐ ἐν τοῖς (τῆς) 
γῆς ὅροις εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ὑπὸ τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῆς 
ἐπιπροσθουμένην. 

10. Σκόπει δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀφεὶς ἀπλανεῖς καὶ 
πλάνητας ἃ δείκνυσιν ᾿Ἀρίσταρχος ἐν τῷ ἸΤερὶ με- 
γεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ὅτι ‘To τοῦ ἡλίου ἀπό- 
στημα τοῦ ἀποστήματος τῆς σελήνης ᾿ ὃ ἀφέστηκεν 

D ἡμῶν ᾿ πλέον μὲν ἢ ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον ἔλαττον δ᾽ 
ἢ εἰκοσαπλάσιόν ἐστι. καίτοι ὁ τὴν σελήνην ἐπὶ 
μήκιστον αἴρων ἀπέχειν" φησὶν ἡ ἡμῶν. ἕξ καὶ πεντη- 
κονταπλάσιον τῆς ἐκ τοῦ κέντρου τῆς γῆς. αὕτη" 
δ᾽ ἐστὶ τεσσάρων μυριάδων καὶ κατὰ τοὺς μέσως 
ἀναμετροῦντας, καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης “συλλογιζομένοις 
ἀπέχει ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης πλέον ἢ ἢ τετρακισχιλίας 
τριάκοντα μυριάδας. οὕτως ἀπῴκισται τοῦ ἡλίου 
διὰ βάρος καὶ τοσοῦτο τῇ γῇ προσκεχώρηκεν ὥστε, 
εἰ τοῖς τόποις τὰς οὐσίας διαιρετέον, ἡ γῆς μοῖρα 
καὶ χώρα" προσκαλεῖται σελήνην καὶ τοῖς περὶ γῆν 

E πράγμασι καὶ σώμασιν ἐπίδικός ἐστι κατ᾽ ἀγχι- 
στείαν καὶ γειτνίασιν. καὶ οὐδέν, οἶμαι, πλημμε- 
λοῦμεν ὅτι τοῖς ἄνω προσαγορευομένοις βάθος 
τοσοῦτο καὶ διάστημα διδόντες ἀπολείπομέν τινα 


ἢ 
1 Aldine, Basiliensis ; ἐν τοῖς γῆς -Εἰ ; ἐν τοῖς γῆς -Β. 
5. B; ἀπέχει -E. 
3. Β ; αὐτὴ -E. 
4 Turnebus (cf. 925 c: τόπον ὃς γῆς κλῆρος) : ὥρα -Εὶ, B. 


α This is Proposition 7 of Aristarchus’s treatise, the full 
title of which is On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and 
Moon. ‘The treatise is edited and translated by Sir Thomas 
Heath in his Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 352 ff. 

Ὁ This was not the highest estimate hitherto given, nor 
have I been able to identify its author. Cf. on this matter and 
the subsequent calculations in this passage Class. Phil. xlvi 


74 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 925 


boldly declare, I think, that the moon is within the 
confines of (the) earth inasmuch as she is occulted 
by its extremities. 

10. Dismiss the fixed stars and the cther planets 
and consider the demonstrations of Aristarchus in 
his treatise, On Szzes and Distances, that ‘ the distance 
of the sun is more than 18 times and less than 20 
times the distance of the moon,’ that is its distance 
from us.“ According to the highest estimate, how- 
ever, the moon’s distance from us is said to be 56 
times the radius of the earth.2 Even according to 
the mean calculations this radius is 40,000 stades ; 
and, if we reckon from this, the sun is more than 
40,300,000 stades distant from the moon. She has 
migrated so far from the sun on account of her weight 
and has moved so close to the earth that, if pro- 
perties © are to be determined by locations, the lot, 
I mean the position, of earth lays an action against 
the moon and she is legally assignable by right of 
propinquity and kinship to the chattels real and 
personal of earth. We do not err at all, I think, if 
granting such altitude and extension to the things 
called ᾿ upper ’ we leave what is “ down below ’ also 


(1951), pp. 140-141. No attempt is made to give equivalents 
for stades in calculations, for it is uncertain what stade is 
meant in any one place. Schiaparelli assumes everywhere 
the Olympic stade of 185 metres (Scritti sulla storia della 
astronomia antica, i, p. 333, n. 3 and p. 342, n. 1); Heath 
argues that Eratosthenes used a stade of 157.5 metres and 
Ptolemy the royal stade of 210 metres (Aristarchus of Samos, 
pp. 339 and 346) ; and Raingeard (p. 83 on 925 p 6) assumes 
without argument that Plutarch used the Attic stade of 177.6 
metres. 

¢ There is a play on the meaning of τὰς οὐσίας. ‘* sub- 
stances,” as “‘ property’ or “‘ estates’? and as “ the real 
nature of things.” 


75 


(925) 


926 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ ~ / \ \ ἤ a > \ 
Kal τῷ κάτω περιδρομὴν καὶ πλάτος ὅσον ἐστὶν 
ἀπὸ γῆς ἐπὶ σελήνην᾽ οὔτε γὰρ ὁ τὴν ἄκραν ἐπι- 
φάνειαν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μόνην ἄνω τἄλλα δὲ κάτω 
προσαγορεύων ἅπαντα μέτριός ἐστιν ov?” ὁ τῇ γῇ 
μᾶλλον δ᾽ ὁ τῷ κέντρῳ τὸ κάτω περιγράφων 
ἀνεκτός, ἀλλὰ κἀκείνῃ τι καὶ ταύτῃ διάστημα 
δοτέον ἐπιχωροῦντος τοῦ κόσμου διὰ μέγεθος. 
πρὸς δὲ τὸν ἀξιοῦντα πᾶν εὐθὺς ἄνω καὶ μετέωρον 
εἶναι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἕτερος ἀντηχεῖ πάλιν εὐθὺς 
ae κάτω TO ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπλανοῦς περιφορᾶς. 

Ὅλως δὲ πῶς λέγεται καὶ τίνος ἡ γῆ μέση 
κεῖσθαι; τὸ γὰρ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι, τῷ δ᾽ ἀπείρῳ 
μήτ᾽ ἀρχὴν ἔχοντι μήτε πέρας οὐ προσήκει. μέσον 
ἔχειν: πέρας γάρ τι καὶ τὸ μέσον, ἡ δ᾽ ἀπειρία 
περάτων στέρησις. ὁ δὲ μὴ τοῦ παντὸς ἀλλὰ τοῦ 
κόσμου μέσην εἶναι τὴν γῆν ἀποφαινόμενος ἡδύς 

/ 
ἐστιν εἰ μὴ Kal τὸν κόσμον αὐτὸν ἐνέχεσθαι Tats 
- “- \ A 
αὐταῖς ἀπορίαις νομίζει: TO yap πᾶν οὐδὲ τούτῳ" 

/ 5 > / > > > / \ > / / > 
μέσον ἀπέλιπεν, ἀλλ ἀνέστιος καὶ ἀνίδρυτός ἐστιν 
ἐν ἀπείρῳ κενῷ φερόμενος. πρὸς οὐδὲν οἰκεῖον <n), 

/ 
et° ἄλλην τινὰ τοῦ μένειν εὑράμενος αἰτίαν' ἕστηκεν 
οὐ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ τόπου φύσιν, ὅμοια καὶ περὶ γῆς 

\ \ / > / \ / ς « / 
Kal περὶ σελήνης εἰκάζειν τινὶ πάρεστιν ὡς ἑτέρᾳ 

1 Bernardakis after Madvig’s καὶ ἐκείνῃ Kal; καὶ κινητικο 
vac. 2-H, B. 

2 Madvig ; τὸ δέον -E, B. 

8 Wyttenbach ; κεῖται -E, B. 

4 Stephanus (1624) ; : τοῦτο -E, B. 

5. Turnebus ; μέσην -E, B. 

Implied by versions of Xylander and Kepler; εἰ ἄλλην 
-E, B; ἢ ἄλλην -Turnebus. 


7 E>; αἰτίαν εὑράμενος -B. 





4 Of. De Defectu Oraculorum, 424 Ὁ, where καθ᾽ ods δ᾽ 
76 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 925-926 


some room to move about in and so much latitude 
as there is from earth to moon. For as he is im- 
moderate who calls only the outermost surface of 
the heaven ‘ up ’ and all else ‘ down,’ so is he intoler- 
able who restricts ‘ down’ to the earth or rather to 
the centre ; but both there and here some extension 
must be granted since the magnitude of the universe 
permits it. The claim that everything away from 
the earth is zpso facto‘ up ’ and ‘ on high ’ is answered 
by a counter-claim that what is away from the circuit 
of the fixed stars is zpso facto ‘ down.’ 

11. After all, in what sense is earth situated in the 
middle and in the middle of what ? The sum of things 
is infinite ; and the infinite, having neither beginning 
nor limit, cannot properly have a middle, for the 
middle isa kind of limit too but infinity is a negation 
of limits. He who asserts that the earth is in the 
middle not of the sum of things but of the cosmos is 
naive if he supposes that the cosmos itself is not also 
involved in the very same difficulties.* In fact, in the 
sum of things no middle has been left for the cosmos 
either, but it is without hearth and habitation,? moving 
in infinite void to nothing of its own; (or), if it has 
come to rest because it has found some other reason 
for abiding, not because of the nature of its location,° 
similar inferences are permissible in the cases of 
both earth and moon, that the former is stationary 


ἔστιν (scil. τὸ κενόν) refers to the Stoics (for whose distinction 
between the πᾶν and the κόσμος see note ὁ on 924 E supra), and 
De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1054 B-p, where as here Plutarch 
uses against the Stoics a weapon taken from their own 
arsenal. 

» Cf. Gracchi, ix. 5. 828 Ὁ : ἄοικοι καὶ ἀνίδρυτοι. 

¢ Cf. S.V.F. ii, pp. 174-175, frags. 552 and.553; De 
Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1054 r—1055 B. 


oF 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(926) τινὶ ψυχῇ καὶ φύσει μᾶλλον (ἢ τοπικῇ) διαφορᾷ" 
τῆς μὲν ἀτρεμούσης ἐνταῦθα “τῆς δ᾽ ἐκεῖ ᾿ φερομένης. 
ἄνευ δὲ τούτων ὅρα μὴ μέγα τι λέληθεν αὐτούς: 
εἰ γὰρ ὅτι ἂν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν" ἐκτὸς γένηται τοῦ 
κέντρου τῆς γῆς ἄνω ἐστίν, οὐδέν ἐστι τοῦ κόσμου 
κάτω μέρος ἀλλ᾽ ἄνω καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ 

Β πᾶν ἁπλῶς σῶμα τῷ" κέντρῳ περιεστηκὸς ἢ περι- 
κείμενον ἄνω γίγνεται. κάτω δὲ μόνον [ὃν] ἕν, τὸ 
ἀσώματον σημεῖον ἐκεῖνο ὃ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀντικεῖσθαι 
τὴν τοῦ κόσμου φύσιν ἀναγκαῖον εἴ γε δὴ τὸ κάτω 
πρὸς τὸ ἄνω κατὰ φύσιν ἀντίκειται. καὶ οὐ τοῦτο 
μόνον τὸ ἄτοπον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἀπόλλυσι τὰ 
βάρη δι᾿ ἣν δεῦρο καταρρέπει καὶ φέρεται" σῶμα 
μὲν γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι κάτω πρὸς ὃ κινεῖται, τὸ δ᾽ 
ἀσώματον οὔτ᾽ εἰκὸς οὔτε βούλονται τοσαὕτην ἔχειν 
δύναμιν ὥστε πάντα κατατείνειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸ καὶ περὶ 
αὑτὸ" συνέχειν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅλως ἄλογον εὑρίσκεται καὶ 
μαχόμενον τοῖς πράγμασι τὸ ἄνω τὸν κόσμον ὅλον 
εἶναι τὸ δὲ κάτω μηδὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ πέρας ἀσώματον καὶ 
ἀδιάστατον ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ εὔλογον, ὡς λέγομεν ἡμεῖς, 
τῷ τ᾽ ἄνω χώραν καὶ τῷ κάτω πολλὴν καὶ πλάτος 
ἔχουσαν διῃρῆσθαι. 

Ο 14. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ θέντες, εἰ βούλει, παρὰ φύσιν 


ΕΠ Ὁ alter Wyttenbach’s μᾶλλον ἢ φυσικῇ Kal τοπικῇ 
διαφορᾷ and Bernardakis’s μᾶλλον (ἢ τόπου) διαφορᾷ (cf. De 


Defectu Oraculorum, 424 £: οὐ τοπικῶς ἀλλὰ σωματικῶς an 
De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 10548: φύσει... οὐ τῆς οὐσίας 
... ἀλλὰ Tis... χώρας) :- μᾶλλον vac. 7-E, 9-B διαφοραὶ 


2 Madvig : δὲ καὶ -E, B. 

Diibner ; ὁπωσοῦν καὶ ὅτι av -E, B. 

4 Bernardakis (9) ; τὸ -E, B. 

5 Deleted by Madvig. 

6 E; περὶ αὐτὸ -B. ? Emperius ; ὅμως -E, B. 


ω 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 926 


here and the latter is in motion there by reason of a 
different soul or nature rather (than) a difference 
(of location). Besides this, consider whether they ¢ 
have not overlooked an important point. If anything 
in any way at all off the centre of the earth is ‘ up,’ 
no part of the cosmos is ‘down’; but it turns out 
that the earth and the things on the earth and 
absolutely all body surrounding or enclosing the 
centre are ἡ up’ and only one thing is ‘ down,’ that 
incorporeal point ® which must be in opposition to 
the entire nature of the cosmos, if in fact ‘ down’ and 
‘up’ are natural opposites.° This, moreover, does 
not exhaust the absurdity. The cause of the descent 
of heavy objects and of their motion to this region is 
also abolished, for there is no body that is ‘ down’ 
towards which they are in motion and it is neither 
likely nor in accordance with the intention of these 
men that the incorporeal should have so much in- 
fluence as to attract all these objects and keep them 
together around itself.“ On the contrary, it proves 
to be entirely unreasonable and inconsistent with the 
facts for the whole cosmos to be ‘ up’ and nothing 
but an incorporeal and unextended limit to be 
‘down’; but that statement of ours is reasonable, 
that ample space and broad has been divided between 
“up ’ and ‘ down.’ 

12. All the same, let us assume, if you please, that 


2 The Stoies. 

ὃ Cf. SaViF. ii, p. 169. 9-11, frag. Bie st τῆς γῆς περὶ 
τὸ μέσον σημεῖον. τοῦ κόσμου κειμένης, ὃ δὴ τοῦ παντός ἐστι κάτω, 
ἄνω δὲ τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ κύκλῳ πάντῃ. 

& Cf, SeoVePa di; Ρ. 176, frag. 556: τὸ ἄνω καὶ τὸ κάτω οὐ 
κατὰ σχέσιν. .. φύσει γὰρ διάφορα ταῦτα. 

4 See note don 924 B supra, and cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 
424 © against Aristotle. 


79 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(926) ἐ εν οὐρανῷ τοῖς γεώδεσι τὰς κινήσεις ὑπάρχειν 
ἀτρέμα, μὴ τραγικῶς, ἀλλὰ πράως σκοπῶμεν ὅτι 
τοῦτο τὴν σελήνην οὐ δείκνυσι γῆν μὴ οὖσαν ἀλλὰ 
γῆν ὅπου μὴ πέφυκεν. οὖσαν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ πῦρ τὸ 
Αἰτναῖον ὑπὸ γῆν παρὰ φύσιν ἐ ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ πῦρ ἐστι 
καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῖς ἀσκοῖς περιληφθέν ἐστι μὲν 
ἀνωφερὲς φύσει καὶ κοῦφον ἥκει δ᾽ ὅπου μὴ πέ- 
φυκεν ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης. αὐτὴ δ᾽ ἣ ψυχή, πρὸς Atos ’ 
εἶπον" “᾿ ov παρὰ φύσιν τῷ σώματι συνεῖρκται βρα- 
δεῖ ταχεῖα καὶ ψυχρῷ πυρώδης, ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς φατε, 
καὶ ἀόρατος αἰσθητῷ; διὰ τοῦτ᾽ οὖν σώματι ψυχὴν 
μὴ λέγωμεν; Kev etvar® μηδὲ νοῦν," χρῆμα θεῖον, 

D [ὑπὸ βρίθους ἢ πάχους |," οὐρανόν τε πάντα καὶ γῆν 
καὶ θάλασσαν ἐν ταὐτῷ περιπολοῦντα καὶ διυπτά- 
μενον," εἰς σάρκας ἥκειν καὶ νεῦρα καὶ “μυελοὺς 
(ὑπὸ βρίθους καὶ πάχους)" καὶ ΄παθέων μυρίων μετὰ 
ὑγρότητος; ὁ δὲ Ζεὺς ὑ ὑμῖν" οὗτος οὐ τῇ μὲν αὑτοῦ" 
φύσει χρώμενος ἕν ἐστι μέγα πῦρ καὶ συνεχές, νυνὶ 
6°" ὑφεῖται καὶ κέκαμπται καὶ διεσχημάτισται, πᾶν 
χρῆμα" γεγονὼς καὶ γιγνόμενος ἐν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς; 

ΒΕ ; εἶπεν -B. 

E ; λέγομεν -B. 

Van Herwerden; εἶναι -E, Β. 

4 Madvig ; μηδὲν οὐ -Εἰ, B. 

5{ |] H.C. (see. note 7 znfra). 

§ Wyttenbach ; διϊστάμενον -E, 

7 I have transposed this phrase hither ; ; E and B have it 
between θεῖον and οὐρανόν above. 

8 Xylander ; ἡμῖν -E, 

® E, B*; adrod -B1. 

E; ἔνεστι -B. 

11 νυνὶ δὲ -B; vuvide -E. 

12 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 943; χρῶμα -E, B. 

α (f.928 8 infra. Plutarch probably has in mind inflated 


80 


on 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 926 


the motions of earthy objects in the heaven are con- 
trary to nature; and then let us calmly observe 
without any histrionics and quite dispassionately that 
this indicates not that the moon is not earth but that 
she is earth in an ‘ unnatural’ location. For the fire 
of Aetna too is below earth ‘ unnaturally,’ but it is 
fire ; and the air confined in skins,“ though by nature 
it is light and has an upward tendency, has been con- 
strained to occupy an ‘ unnatural’ location. As to 
the soul herself,”’ I said, ““ by Zeus, is her confinement 
in the body not contrary to nature, swift as she is and 
fiery, as you say,’ and invisible in a sluggish, cold, 
and sensible vehicle ? Shall we then on this account 
deny that there is soul (in) body or that mind, a 
divine thing, though it traverses instantaneously in 
its flight all heaven and earth and sea,’ has passed 
into flesh and sinew and marrow under the influence 
of weight and density and countless qualities that 
attend liquefaction ?¢ This Zeus of yours too, is it 
not true that, while in his own nature he is single, a 
great and continuous fire, at present he is slackened 
and subdued and transformed, having become and 
continuing to become everything in the course of 


skins used for floats ; cf. Aristotle, Physics, 217 a 2-3, 255 Ὁ 
26, De Caelo, 311 b 9-13. 

> Of. S.V.F. ii, p. 217, frag. 773: of μὲν yap Στωϊκοὶ πνεῦμα 
λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔνθερμον Kai διάπυρον. 

¢ For this commonplace of the flight of the mind through 
the universe cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. xxi (1926), pp. 97- 
113; 

@ This is a reference to the Stoic notion that the embodi- 
ment of soul was a process of condensation or liquefaction. 
Cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1053 B-c (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 
605) and for the qualities that would attend liquefaction 
S.V.F. ii, p. 155. 34: γῆς τε καὶ ὕδατος, παχυμερῶν καὶ βαρέων 
καὶ ἀτόνων ὄντων. 


81 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(926) ὥσθ᾽ ὅρα καὶ σκόπει, δαιμόνιε, μὴ μεθιστὰς Kat 
EK ἀπάγων ἕκαστον ὅπου πέφυκεν εἶναι διάλυσίν τινα 
κόσμου φιλοσοφῇς καὶ τὸ νεῖκος ἐπάγῃς τὸ Ἔμπε- 
δοκλέους τοῖς πράγμασι μᾶλλον δὲ τοὺς παλαιοὺς 
κινῆς Τιτᾶνας ἐπὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ Γίγαντας καὶ τὴν 
μυθικὴν ἐκείνην καὶ φοβερὰν ἀκοσμίαν καὶ πλημ- 
μέλειαν ἐπιδεῖν ποθῇς χωρὶς τὸ βαρὺ πᾶν καὶ χωρὶς 
(Geis πᾶν" τὸ κοῦφον. 


ἔνθ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἠελίοιο διείδεται" ἀγλαὸν εἶδος" 
2 \ \ LENE] ” / / 4 > \ / 
οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδ᾽ αἴης λάσιον μένος" οὐδὲ θάλασσα 


σ 3 ~ > ~ / cal 

ὥς φησιν ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς" οὐ γῆ θερμότητος μετεῖχεν, 
F οὐχ ὕδωρ πνεύματος, οὐκ ἄνω τι τῶν βαρέων, οὐ 

κάτω Tu τῶν κούφων, GAN ἄκρατοι καὶ ἄστοργοι 


1 H.C., combining {πᾶνν of Turnebus with Diels’s insertion 
of θεὶς after ποθῇς above : χωρὶς vac. 7-E, 3-B. 

2 Simplicius (In Arist. Physic. Comment. p. 1183. 30 
[Diels]) ; δεδίττεται -E, B. 

8 E, B; ὠκέα γυῖα -Simplicius, loc. cit. (cf. exegetical note). 
Bergk : γένος -E, B. 
Stephanus ; τί -E, B. 
6 Stephanus : τί -E, B. 


a 


* =8.V.F., ii, p. 308, frag. 1045. Zeus “in Ins owe 
nature ”’ is the state of the universe in the ecpyrosis, while 
“at present ’’ he is the universe in the state of diacosmesis ; 
cf. De Placitis, 881 r—882 a (=Aétius, i. 7. 833=S.V.F. ii, 
frag. 1027), Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 
526), De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1052 c (=S.V.F. ii, frags. 
1068 and 604), De Communibus Notitiis 1075 a-c (=S.V.F. 
ii, frag. 1049), and S.V.F. ii, frags. 1052, 1053, and 1056. 

» The Strife of Empedocles is connected with the mythical 
war of the Giants by Proclus, Jn Platonis Parmenidem Com- 
ment. p. 849, 13-15 (ed. Cousin, Paris, 1864)=p. 659 (ed. 
Stallbaum). 

ὁ Empedocles, frag. B 27 (i, pp. 323. 11-324. 4 [Diels- 
Kranz]|), where the ὠκέα γυῖα given by Simplicius is adopted 
82 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 926 


his mutations?“ So look out and reflect, good sir, 
lest in rearranging and removing each thing to its 
‘natural’ location you contrive a dissolution of the 
cosmos and bring upon things the ‘ Strife ’ of Em- 
pedocles—or rather lest you arouse against nature 
the ancient Titans and Giants ἢ and long to look upon 
that legendary and dreadful disorder and discord 
(when you have separated) all that is heavy and (all) 
that is light. 


The sun’s bright aspect is not there descried, 
No, nor the shaggy might of earth, nor sea 


as Empedocles says. Earth had no part in heat, 
water no part in air; there was not anything heavy 
above or anything light below ; but the principles of 
all things ὦ were untempered and unamiable ’ and 


instead of Plutarch’s ἀγλαὸν εἶδος. Bignone, however, who 
prints the lines given by Plutarch as frag. 26 a and those given 
by Simplicius as frag. 27, is probably right in taking this to 
be one of the lines which were repeated with a different ending 
in two different parts of the poem (Empedocle, studio critico, 
pp. 220 ff., 421, 599 ff.). Certainly Plutarch represents his 
quotation as describing the period when Strife has completely 
separated the four roots, whereas Simplicius says that his 
comes from the description of the Sphere, when all were 
thoroughly intermingled. 

4 j.e, the four ‘‘ roots,”’ earth, air, fire, and water, for the 
separation of which by Strife cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 
8-10 and B 26. 6-9 (i, p. 316. 2-4 and p. 323. 4-7 [Diels- 
Kranz]). 

¢ From this Mullach manufactured for Empedocles the 
verse that he numbered 174 (Frag. Phil. Graec.i, p. 5). Stein 
took only ἄκρατοι καὶ ἄστοργοι to be a quotation. The word 
dotopyos appears nowhere in the fragments of Empedocles 
(though στοργή does in frag. B 109 [i, p. 351. 22, Diels- 
Kranz]), whereas Plutarch uses it several times in other con- 
nections (4matorius, 750 τι Quaest. Nat. 917 Ὁ, De Sollertia 
Animalium, 970 B). 


83 


(926) 


927 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


~ \ 
καὶ μονάδες at τῶν ὅλων ἀρχαὶ μὴ προσιέμεναι 
σύγκρισιν ἑτέρου πρὸς ἕτερον μηδὲ κοινωνίαν ἀλλὰ 
φεύγουσαι καὶ ἀποστρεφόμεναι. καὶ φερόμεναι φο- 
ρὰς ἰδίας καὶ αὐθάδεις οὕτως εἶχον ὡς ἔχει πᾶν οὗ 
θεὸς ἄπεστι κατὰ [lAdtwva, τουτέστιν ὡς ἔχει τὰ 
σώματα νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀπολιπούσης, ἄχρι' οὗ τὸ 
ἱμερτὸν ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὴν φύσιν ἐκ προνοίας, φιλότητος 
> / AL +3 / ον « 3 
ἐγγενομένης καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτης καὶ "ἔρωτος ὡς Ἔμ- 
~ / \ / x «& / - 

πεδοκλῆς λέγει καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ ᾿Ησίοδος, ἵνα 

\ / > / \ / > > > / 
καὶ τόπους ἀμείψαντα καὶ δυνάμεις ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων 
μεταλαβόντα καὶ τὰ μὲν κινήσεως τὰ δὲ μονῆς 
ἀνάγκαις ἐνδεθέντα καὶ καταβιασθέντα πρὸς τὸ 
βέλτιον ἐξ οὗ πέφυκεν ἐνδοῦναι καὶ μεταστῆναι 
{τὰ σώματαν" ἁρμονίαν καὶ κοινωνίαν ἀπεργάσηται 
τοῦ παντός. 

13. Et μὲν γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἄλλο τι τῶν τοῦ κόσμου 
-“ \ 7 7 5 > Ὁ - / 
μερῶν παρὰ φύσιν ἔσχεν ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον ἧ πέφυκε 
κεῖται μηδεμιᾶς" μεθιδρύσεως μηδὲ μετακοσμήσεως 
δεόμενον μηδ᾽ ἐν ἀρχῇ δεηθέν, ἀπορῶ τί τῆς προ- 
νοίας ἔργον ἐστὶν ἢ τίνος γέγονε ποιητὴς καὶ πατὴρ 
1 Bernardakis ; ἄχρις -E, B. 


2 H.C. 3 μεταστῆναι vac. 7-E, 9-B. 
3 Es μὴ δὲ μιᾶς -B. 


« Of. Clara Millerd, On the Interpretation of Empedocles, 
p. 54, and Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic 
Philosophy, Ὁ. 175, n. 130. Plutarch’s circumstantial account 
of the motion of the four “ roots ’’ during the complete domi- 
nance of Strife is coloured by the passage of Plato to which 
he refers. 

ὑ Timaeus, 53 B; ef. De Defectu Oraculorum, 430 Ὁ, and 
De An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1016 Ὁ. 

© Of. Amatorius, 756 p-r, where Empedocles, frag. B 17. 
20-21 (i, p. 317. 1-2 [Diels-Kranz]), and Parmenides, frag. 
84 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 926-927 


solitary, not accepting combination or association 
with one another, but avoiding and shunning one 
another and moving with their own peculiar and 
arbitrary motions “ they were in the state in which, 
according to Plato,? everything is from which God 
is absent, that is to say in which bodies are when mind 
or soul is wanting. So they were until desire came 
over nature providentially, for Affection arose or 
Aphrodite or Eros, as Empedocles says and Par- 
menides and Hesiod,’ in order that by changing 
position and interchanging functions and by being 
constrained some to motion and some to rest and 
compelled to give way and shift from the ᾿ natural ἡ 
to the‘ better ’ (the bodies) might produce a universal 
concord and community. 

13. If not a single one of the parts of the cosmos 
ever got into an ‘ unnatural ’ condition but each one 
is ‘naturally’ situated, requiring no transposition 
or rearrangement and having required none in the 
beginning either, I cannot make out what use there 
is of providence ὁ or of what Zeus, ‘the master- 


B 18 (i, p. 243. 16 [Diels-Kranz]) are quoted, and Hesiod, 
Theogony, 120 is referred to; and cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 
984 b 23—985 a 10. With Plutarch’s ἐκ προνοίας contrast 
Aristotle’s criticism of Empedocles (Metaphysics, 1000 b 12- 
17) and cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 29 and B 30 (i, p. 317. 
10 and p. 325. 10-12 [Diels-Kranz]). By ἐκ προνοίας here 
Plutarch prepares the way for his use in the next paragraph 
of the Stoic doctrine of providence against the Stoic doctrine 
of natural place. 

4 On the importance of providence in Stoic doctrine and 
its ubiquity in Stoic writings cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 
1050 ἈΞ πὶ [ΞΞ 3 LP 1 frae937), Τ0 51: Ὁ (=S.ViF eM, frag: 
1115); De Communibus Notitiis, 1075 πὶ (=S.V-.F. ii, frag. 
1126), 1077 p-e (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 1064) ; Cicero, De Natura 
Deorum, iii. 92 (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 1107) ; Diogenes Laertius, 
vii. 138-139 (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 634). 

85 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(927) δημιουργὸς ὁ Ζεὺς 6 ἀριστοτέχνας. οὐ yap* ἐν 
στρατοπέδῳ τακτικῶν ὄφελος, εἴπερ εἰδείη τῶν 
στρατιωτῶν ἕκαστος ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τάξιν τε καὶ χώραν 
καὶ καιρὸν οὗ δεῖ λαβεῖν καὶ διαφυλάσσειν οὐδὲ 
κηπουρῶν οὐδ᾽ οἰκοδόμων, εἰ πῇ μὲν αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ 
ad’ αὑτοῦ" πέφυκεν ἐπιέναι" τοῖς δεομένοις καὶ κατ- 
άρδειν ἐπιρρέον πῇ δὲ πλίνθοι καὶ ξύλα καὶ λίθοι 
ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν χρώμενα ῥοπαῖς" καὶ νεύσεσιν ἐξ 
ἑαυτῶν καταλαμβάνειν τὴν προσήκουσαν ἁρμο- 
νίαν καὶ χώραν. εἰ δ᾽ οὗτος μὲν ἄντικρυς ἀναιρεῖ 

\ / ¢ ,ὔ ~ ~ ϑι ΣΡ / ~ »” 
Ο τὴν πρόνοιαν 6 λόγος τῷ θεῷ δ᾽ ἡ τάξις τῶν ὄντων 
προσήκει καὶ {τὸν διαιρεῖν, τί θαυμαστὸν οὕτως" 
/ \ / \ /, δ > “ \ 
τετάχθαι καὶ διηρμόσθαι τὴν φύσιν ws ἐνταῦθα μὲν 
πῦρ ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ἄστρα καὶ πάλιν ἐνταῦθα μὲν γῆν᾽ ἄνω 
\ / ς “- / ~ \ , 
δὲ σελήνην ἱδρῦσθαι, βεβαιοτέρῳ τοῦ Kata φύσιν 
~ \ / ~ “- .8 ς ” 
τῷ κατὰ λόγον δεσμῷ περιληφθεῖσαν;" ws, εἴ ye 
πάντα δεῖ ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν ῥοπαῖς χρῆσθαι καὶ 
φέρεσθαι καθ᾽ 6° πέφυκε, μήθ᾽" ἥλιος κυκλοφο- 
/ / / \ ~ 7 > / 
ρείσθω μήτε Φωσφόρος μηδὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων 
μηδείς: ἄνω γὰρ οὐ κύκλῳ τὰ κοῦφα καὶ πυροειδῆ 


1B; υ γὰρ -E. 
2. Β; am αὐτοῦ -E. 
_  § Emperius : ἐπεῖναι -E, B (cf. the same mistake in Pom- 
pey, Xxxii. 636 B). 


4 Turnebus (cf. Adv. Coloten, 1122 c: ῥοπῆς . . . καὶ vev- 
σεως) : τροπαῖς -E, B. 

5 Diibner. 

6 EF; οὕτω -B. 


7 Ἐς ἐνταῦθα γῆν -F, 

8 Wyttenbach ; δεσμωτηρίῳ ληφθεῖσαν -E, B. 
® Stephanus (1624); καθὸ -E, B. 

10 Bernardakis ; μὴδ᾽ -E, B. 


86 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 927 


craftsman ’* is maker and father-creator.2. In an 
army, certainly, tacticians are useless if each one of 
the soldiers should know of himself his post and posi- 
tion and the moment when he must take and keep 
them. Gardeners and builders are useless too if 
here water all of itself“ naturally ’ moves to the things 
that require it and irrigates them with its stream, 
and there bricks and timbers and stones by following 
their ‘ natural’ inclinations and tendencies assume 
of themselves their appropriate position and arrange- 
ment. If, however, this notion eliminates providence 
forthwith and if the arrangement of existing things 
pertains to God and (the) distributing of them too,° 
what wonder is there that nature has been so mar- 
shalled and disposed that here in our region there 
is fire but the stars are yonder and again ‘that earth 
is here but the moon is established on high, held fast 
by the bonds of reason which are firmer than the 
bonds of nature’? For, if all things really must 
follow their ‘ natural’ inclinations and move with 
their ἡ natural ’ motions, you must order the sun not 
to revolve and Venus too and every other star as well, 
for light and fiery bodies move ἡ naturally ’ upwards 


# Plutarch ascribes to Pindar this epithet of Zeus in Quaest. 
Conviv. 618 B, De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 550 a, De Com- 
munibus Notitiis, 1065 ©, and in Praecepta Gerendae Rei- 
publicae, 807 c uses it of the statesman ; cf. Pindar, frag. 48, 
Bowra=57, Bergk and Schroeder=66, Turyn. 

> This terminology is more Platonic than Stoic: ef. 
Quaest. Conviv. 720 B-c, De An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1017 a; 
ef. Timaeus, 28 c and contrast δ. V.F. ii, frag. 323 a. 

¢ Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1075 a 11-15, and Diogenes 
Laerisus;-viier 131 (= S. VF; Arag= θη (eds). δη- 
μιουργὸς ὧν τῆς διακοσμήσεως. 

4 Wyttenbach’s correction is assured by Timaeus, 41 B 4-6, 
of which this is meant to be an echo. 


87 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(927) κινεῖσθαι πέφυκεν. εἰ δὲ τοιαύτην ἐξαλλαγὴν ἡ 
φύσις ἔχει παρὰ τὸν τόπον ὥστ᾽ ἐνταῦθα μὲν ἄνω 
φαίνεσθαι' φερόμενον τὸ πῦρ ὅταν δ᾽ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν 
παραγένηται τῇ δίνῃ συμπεριστρέφεσθαι, τί θαυ- 
μαστὸν εἰ καὶ τοῖς βαρέσι καὶ γεώδεσιν ἐκεῖ γενο- 

, 2 , ¢ , > ” 7 

D μένοις" συμβέβηκεν ὡσαύτως εἰς ἄλλο κινήσεως 
εἶδος ὑπὸ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἐκνενικῆσθαι; οὐ γὰρ 
δὴ ~ \ 3 ~ \ » \ > A 
ἡ τῶν μὲν ἐλαφρῶν τὴν ἄνω φορὰν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι 
τῷ οὐρανῷ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ τῶν δὲ βαρέων καὶ 

/ ¢ / >’ / ~ > > oy 3 > 
κάτω ῥεπόντων od δύναται κρατεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ (H>* ποτ 
ἐκεῖνα δυνάμει καὶ ταῦτα μετακοσμήσας ἐχρήσατο 
τῇ φύσει αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον. 

14. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ εἴ γε δεῖ τὰς καταδεδουλωμένας 
ἕξεις (καὶ δόξας ἀφέντας ἤδη τὸ φαινόμενον 
> ~ / ᾽ \ ” 7 / > \ > 
ἀδεῶς λέγειν, οὐδὲν ἔοικεν ὅλου μέρος αὐτὸ καθ 
« \ / av / a“ / 9. , ΝΜ ΘΒ «A 
ἑαυτὸ τάξιν ἢ θέσιν ἢ κίνησιν ἰδίαν ἔχειν ἣν" av τις 
ἁπλῶς κατὰ φύσιν προσαγορεύσειεν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν 

e av 

E ἕκαστον, οὗ χάριν γέγονε καὶ πρὸς ὃ πέφυκεν ἢ 
πεποίηται, τούτῳ παρέχῃ" χρησίμως καὶ οἰκείως 
κινούμενον ἑαυτὸ καὶ πάσχον ἢ ποιοῦν 7 διακεί- 
μενον ὡς ἐκείνῳ πρὸς σωτηρίαν 7) κάλλος ἢ δύναμιν 

E ; φέρεσθαι -B. 

Wyttenbach : EKYEVOHEVOLS -E, B. 

Emperius ; ἀλλ vac. 2 ποτέ Fs ἀλλ᾽ vac. 2 ποτε -Β. 

Xylander (cf. Numa, xxii. 74D: ἕξιν τε Kal γνώμην) 3 

ἕξεις vac. 8 δόξας -E; ἕξεις vac. 5-7 (at end of line) δόξας -Β. 

5 Basiliensis ; 7 Ἔ, B. 

6 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; παρέχειν -E, B; παρέχει 

-Basiliensis. 


o nw 


- 


4 The Stoics held that the heavenly bodies consist of fire, 
which, though they call it αἰθήρ, is not a “‘ fifth essence ”’ like 
Aristotle’ s (cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137=S.V.F. ii, frag. 


88 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 927 


and not in a circle.“ If, however, nature includes 
such variation in accordance with location that fire, 
though it is seen to move upwards here, as soon as 
it has reached the heavens revolves along with their 
rotation, what wonder is there that the same thing 
has happened to heavy and earthy bodies that have 
got there and that they too have been reduced by 
the environment to a different kind of motion ? For 
it certainly cannot be that heaven ἡ naturally ’ de- 
prives light objects of their upward motion but is 
unable to master objects that are heavy and have a 
downward inclination ; on the contrary, by (what- 
ever) influence it rearranged the former it rearranged 
the latter too and employed the nature of both of 
them for the better. 

14. What is more, if we are finally to throw off the 
habits (and) opinions that have held our minds in 
thrall and fearlessly to say what really appears to 
be the case, no part of a whole all by itself seems to 
have any order, position, or motion of its own which 
could be called unconditionally ‘ natural.’® On the 
contrary, each and every such part, whenever its 
motion is usefully and properly accommodated to 
that for the sake of which the part has come to be 
and which is the purpose of its growth or production, 
and whenever it acts or is affected or disposed so that 
it contributes to the preservation or beauty or function 


580; S.V.F. ii, frag. 682). In De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 
1053 © Plutarch quotes Chrysippus to the effect that τὸ πῦρ 
ἀβαρὲς ov ἀνωφερὲς εἶναι (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 434). In accor- 
dance with this, he here argues, the Stoics are not justified in 
explaining the circular motion of the heavenly bodies as 
** natural ’’ in the way that Aristotle did. 

Ὁ Cf. Plutarch, frag. vii. 15 (Bernardakis, vol. vii, p. 31. 
6 ff.=Olympiodorus, /n Phaedonem, p. 157. 22-25 [Norvin]). 


89 


(927) 


F 


928 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ἐπιτήδειόν ἐστι, τότε δοκεῖ τὴν κατὰ φύσιν χώραν 
ἔχειν καὶ κίνησιν καὶ διάθεσιν. ὁ γοῦν ἄνθρωπος, 
ὡς εἴ TU τῶν ὄντων ἕτερον κατὰ φύσιν γεγονώς, 
ἄνω μὲν ἔχει. τὰ" ἐμβριθῆ καὶ γεώδη μάλιστα περὶ 
τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐν δὲ τοῖς μέσοις τὰ θερμὰ καὶ πυρώδη" 
τῶν δ᾽ ὀδόντων οἱ μὲν ἄνωθεν οἱ δὲ κάτωθεν ἐκ- 
φύονται" καὶ οὐδέτεροι παρὰ φύσιν ἔχουσιν, οὐδὲ 
τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ μὲν ἄνω περὶ τὰ ὄμματα ἀποστίλβον 
κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶ τὸ δ᾽ ἐν κοιλίᾳ καὶ καρδίᾳ παρὰ 
φύσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἕκαστον οἰκείως καὶ χρησίμως τέτακται. 


ναὶ μὴν κηρύκων τε λιθορρίνων χελύων" τε 


\ \ b] / / a Le ὃ An 
Kal παντὸς ὀστρέου φύσιν, ws φησιν ὁ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς, 
καταμανθάνων 

” | Pe / \ ¢ ¥, 5 / 
ἔνθ᾽ ὄψει χθόνα χρωτὸς ὑπέρτατα" ναιετάουσαν᾽ 
καὶ οὐ πιέζει τὸ λιθῶδες οὐδὲ καταθλίβει τὴν ἕξιν 
ἐπικείμενον οὐδέ γε πάλιν τὸ θερμὸν ὑπὸ κουφό- 
τητος εἰς τὴν ἄνω χώραν ἀποπτάμενον οἴχεται 
ἔμικται δέ πως πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ συντέτακται 
μ μι \ « 7 / 
κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου φύσιν. 
“4 @) > \ ” \ \ / ” \ 
σπερ εἰκὸς ἔχειν Kal TOV κόσμον, εἴ ye δὴ 
ζῷόν ἐστι, πολλαχοῦ γῆν ἔχοντα πολλαχοῦ δὲ πῦρ 

1 Wyttenbach (implied by versions of Amyot and Kepler) ; 
emt -E, B. 2 E; τὸν -B. 

SE; e ivoore -B. 

4 Xylander (cf. Quaest. Conviv. 618 B); χελωνῶν -E, B. 


5 Β : ὑπέρταυτα -E. 





“ The two lines here quoted and the line that preceded 
them are quoted together in support of the same contention 
in Quaest. Conviv. 618 8n=Empedocles, frag. B 76 (i, p. 339. 
9-11 [Diels-Kranz]). 

ὃ For ἕξις Ξε “ἡ the bodily constitution ” cf. Quaest. Conviv. 
625 a-B, 680 p, 681 £; Amatorius, 764 ¢c. 


90 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 927-928 


of that thing, then, I believe, it has its ‘ natural’ 
position and motion and disposition. In man, at any 
rate, who is the result of ‘ natural’ process if any 
being is, the heavy and earthy parts are above, 
chiefly in the region of the head, and the hot and 
fiery parts are in the middle regions ; some of the 
teeth grow from above and some from below, and 
neither set is ‘ contrary to nature’; and it cannot 
be said that the fire which flashes in the eyes above 
is ‘natural’ whereas that in the bowels and heart 
is ‘ contrary to nature, but each has been assigned 
its proper and useful station. Observe, as Empedocles 
says,” the nature of 


Tritons and tortoises with hides of stone 
and of all testaceans, 
Thouw’lt see earth there established over flesh ; 


and the stony matter does not oppress or crush the 
constitution ἢ on which it is superimposed, nor on 
the other hand does the heat by reason of lightness 
fly off to the upper region and escape, but they have 
been somehow intermingled and organically com- 
bined in accordance with the nature of each. 

15. Such is probably the case with the cosmos too, 
if it really is a living being °: in many places it has 

¢ In Adv. Coloten, 1115 B Strato’s denial of this is cited as 
an example of his opposition to Plato; and in De An. Proc. 
in Timaeo, 1014 c-p Plutarch, speaking of the creation of the 
world by the Platonic demiurge, says τὸ κάλλιστον ἀπεργασά- 
μενος καὶ τελειότατον. . . ζῷον, thereby referring to such 
passages as Timaeus, 30 B-p, 32 c-p, 68 π, 69 B-c. Still, 
Platonic though it is, this assumption is one which his Stoic 
adversaries would grant (cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 139 and 
142-143 [=S.V.F. ii, frags. 634 and 633]); and Plutarch 
believes that in granting it they are committed to the implica- 
tion that the moon despite its location can consist of earth. 


91 


(928) 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ “ \ ~ » > > / > 
Kal ὕδωρ Kal πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτεθλιμ- 
/ > \ / / > \ \ 
μένον ἀλλὰ λόγῳ διακεκοσμημένον. οὐδὲ yap 
> \ >? - ~ / / > ¢ \ / 
ὀφθαλμὸς ἐνταῦθα τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὑπὸ κουφό- 
> \ 9.9 Cc / ~ / > ~ 
τητος ἐκπιεσθεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἡ καρδία τῷ βάρει ὀλισθοῦσα 
/ ᾿] \ ~ > rae / Ss Ὁ 
πέπτωκεν εἰς τὸ στῆθος, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι βέλτιον ἦν οὕτως 
ἑκάτερον τετάχθαι. μὴ τοίνυν μηδὲ τῶν τοῦ κό- 
σμου μερῶν νομίζωμεν μήτε γῆν ἐνταῦθα κεῖσθαι 
συμπεσοῦσαν διὰ βάρος μήτε τὸν ἥλιον, ὡς ᾧετο 
Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος, εἰς τὴν ἄνω χώραν ἀσκοῦ 
/ «ς \ / >? A 7 \ 
δίκην ὑπὸ κουφότητος ἐκτεθλῖφθαι μήτε τοὺς 
»Μ > / σ > ~ “Ὁ ~ 
ἄλλους ἀστέρας, ὥσπερ ἐν ζυγῷ σταθμοῦ" διαφορᾷ 
ῥέψαντας," ἐν οἷς εἰσι γεγονέναι τόποις" ἀλλὰ τοῦ 
κατὰ λόγον κρατοῦντος οὗ μὲν ὥσπερ ὄμματα 
φωσφόρα τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ παντὸς ἐνδεδεμένοι 
περιπολοῦσιν, ἥλιος δὲ καρδίας ἔχων δύναμιν 
ὥσπερ αἷμα καὶ πνεῦμα διαπέμπει καὶ διασκεδάν- 
νυσιν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ θερμότητα καὶ φῶς, γῇ δὲ καὶ 
/ ~ \ / ΞΕ / Ψ / 
θαλάσσῃ χρῆται κατὰ φύσιν ὃ κόσμος ὅσα κοιλίᾳ 
\ / ~ / 25ve / \ \ ~ 
καὶ κύστει ζῷον. σελήνη δ᾽ ἡλίου μεταξὺ καὶ γῆς 
ὥσπερ καρδίας καὶ κοιλίας ἧπαρ ἢ τι μαλθακὸν 
1 Emperius ; μήτε -E, B. 


2 E; ζυγωσταθμοῦ -B. 
3B; ῥέψαντος -E. 


@ Of. Aristotle, De Caelo, 277 Ὁ 1-2: οὐδὲ Bia (seil. φέρεται 
αὐτῶν τὸ μὲν ἄνω τὸ δὲ κάτω) ὥσπερ τινές φασι TH ἐκθλίψει, and 
Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, 
p. 191, n. 196. 

ὃ For this Atomist, who is not to be confused with the 
Epicurean, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, or with the Anaxa- 
gorean, cf. Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.® ii, pp. 231-234 ; 
the present passage should be added to that collection, from 
which it is missing. According to De Placitis, 889 B (= 
Aétius, ii. 15. 6 [Dowx. Graeci, p. 345 a 7T-12]) Metrodorus con- 


92 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 928 


earth and in many fire and water and breath as the 
result not of forcible expulsion® but of rational 
arrangement. After all, the eye has its present 
position in the body not because it was extruded 
thither as a result of its lightness, and the heart is 
in the chest not because its heaviness has caused it 
to slip and fall thither but because it was better that 
each of them should be so located. Let us not then 
believe with regard to the parts of the cosmos either 
that earth is situated here because its weight has 
caused it to subside or that the sun, as Metrodorus of 
Chios ὃ once thought, was extruded into the upper 
region like an inflated skin by reason of its lightness 
or that the other stars got into their present positions 
because they tipped the balance, as it were, at 
different weights. On the contrary, the rational 
principle is in control; and that is why the stars 
revolve fixed like “ radiant eyes ’ “ in the countenance 
of the universe, the sun in the heart’s capacity trans- 
mits and disperses out of himself heat and light as 
it were blood and breath, and earth and sea ἡ natur- 
ally ° serve the cosmos to the ends that bowels and 
bladder do an animal. The moon, situate between 
sun and earth as the liver or another of the soft 


sidered the sun to be farthest from the earth, the moon below 
it, and lower than the moon the planets and fixed stars. For 
the explanation of the sun’s position here ascribed to Metro- 
dorus see note a supra and cf. Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 712. 
27-29. 

¢ In De Fortuna, 98 8 the phrase is quoted as Plafo’s ; it 
comes from Timaeus, 45 Β (τῶν δὲ ὀργάνων πρῶτον μὲν dwoddpa 
συνετεκτήναντο ὄμματα, τοιᾷδε ἐνδήσαντες αἰτίᾳ), and Plutarch’s 
τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ παντὸς ἐνδεδεμένοι was suggested by this in 
conjunction with the preceding lines (45 a: . .. ὑποθέντες 
αὐτόσε TO πρόσωπον, ὄργανα ἐνέδησαν τούτῳ), though Plato is 


there speaking of the human face and eyes. 
93 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(928) ἄλλο σπλάγχνον ἐγκειμένη τήν τ᾿ ἄνωθεν ἀλέαν 
ἐνταῦθα διαπέμπει καὶ τὰς ἐντεῦθεν ἀναθυμιάσεις 
πέψει τινὶ καὶ καθάρσει λεπτύνουσα περὶ ἑαυτὴν 
5 / 5 \ \ φ Μ \ ~ >] ΄-“ 
ἀναδίδωσιν" εἰ δὲ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλα τὸ γεῶδες αὐτῆς 
καὶ στερέμνιον ἔχει τινὰ πρόσφορον χρείαν, ἄδηλον 
ἡμῖν. ἐν παντὶ δὲ κρατεῖ τὸ βέλτιον τοῦ κατ- 
ηναγκασμένου." τί γὰρ οὕτως" λάβωμεν ἐξ ὧν 
ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσι τὸ εἰκός; λέγουσί ye TOU αἰθέρος 

D τὸ μὲν αὐγοειδὲς καὶ λεπτὸν ὑπὸ μανότητος οὐρανὸν 
γεγονέναι τὸ δὲ πυκνωθὲν καὶ συνειληθὲν ἄστρα, 
/ \ 
τούτων δὲ TO νωθρότατον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην καὶ 
~ > 

θολερώτατον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ὁρᾶν πάρεστιν οὐκ ἀπο- 

/ 4 ~ (Ag \ An LAA’ ” 
κεκριμένην΄ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὴν σελήνην a ετι 
1 Wyttenbach (though Xylander had already proposed 
τοῦ κατηναγκασμένου) : 5 κρατεῖται βέλτιον τοῦτο κατηναγκασμένον 


-Ε, B. 3 BE; οὕτω -B. 3.H.C.; de -E, B. 


4 Basiliensis ; ἀποκεκριμένου -E : ἀποκεκρυμμένου -B. 





2 i.e. the spleen. For the purpose of liver and spleen ef. 
Aristotle, De Part. Animal. 670 a 20-29, 670 b 4-17, 673 b 
25-28: and for the close connection of liver and spleen 669 b 
15—670 a 2. 

> Eustathius, dd Iliadem, 695. 12 ff. says that according 
to the Stoics the “ golden rope ”’ of Iliad, viii. 19 is ὁ ἥλιος 
eis ὃν κάτωθεν ὥσπερ εἰς καρδίαν ἀποχεῖται ἀναδιδομένη ἡ τῶν 
ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμίασις. Starting from this K. Reinhardt (Kosmos 
und Sympathie, pp. 332 ff.) argued that Posidonius was 
Plutarch’s source for the analogy between the parts of the 
cosmos and the organs of the body; but Reinhardt’s con- 
tention is refuted by R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. xxvii (1932), 
pp. 121-128. Passages which equate sun and heart are fairly 
frequent, ¢.g. Theon of Smyrna, pp. 187. 13-188. 7 (Hiller) ; 
Proclus, In Timaeum, 171 c-p (ii, p. 104. 20-21 and 28-29, 
Diehl); Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i. 20. 6-7 (pp. 564-565, 
Eyssenhardt) ; Chalcidius, Jn Platonis Timaeum, ὃ 100 (p. 
170, Wrobel); ‘‘ Anon. Christ.”’, Hermippus, pp. 17. 15-18. 11 
(Kroll-Viereck) with astrological ascriptions of different 
bodily organs to the seven planets. An entirely different 


04 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 928 


viscera“ is between heart and bowels, transmits 
hither the warmth from above and sends upwards 
the exhalations from our region, refining them in 
herself by a kind of concoction and purification.’ It 
is not clear to us whether her earthiness and solidity 
have any use suitable to other ends also. Neverthe- 
less, in everything the better has control of the 
necessary.° Well, what probability can we thus con- 
ceive in the statements of the Stoics ? They say that 
the luminous and tenuous part of the ether by reason 
of its subtility became sky and the part which was 
condensed or compressed became stars, and that of 
these the most sluggish and turbid is the moon.? 
Yet all the same anyone can see that the moon has 
not been separated from the ether but that there is 


analogy between the various human faculties and the seven 
planets is mentioned by Proclus, In Timaewm, 348 a-p (iii, 
p- 355. 7-18, Diehl), and Numenius in Macrobius, Somn. 
Scip. i. 12. 14-15 (p. 533, Eyssenhardt); and I know no 
parallel to Plutarch’s further analogy of earth and moon 
with bowels and liver or spleen. In the pseudo-Hippocratic 
Περὶ ἑβδομάδων the moon because of its central position in the 
cosmos appears to have been equated with the diaphragm 
(cf. Roscher, Die hippokratische Schrift von der Siebenzahl, 
p. 5. 45 ff., pp. 10-11, p. 123). In the section of Porphyry’s 
‘Introduction to Ptolemy’s Apotelesmatica”’’ published by 
F. Cumont in Mélanges Bidez, i, pp. 155-156, the source of 
which Cumont contends must have been Antiochus of Athens, 
the moon is said to have the spleen as its special province, 
while the heart is assigned to the sun; but there the liver is 
the province of Jupiter. 

¢ Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 48 a: vod δὲ ἀνάγκης ἄρχοντος τῷ 
πείθειν αὐτὴν τῶν γιγνομένων τὰ πλεῖστα ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον ἄγειν 
κτλ. For the term τὸ κατηναγκασμένον cf. δ'. V.F. ii, frag. 916. 

¢ =S8.V.F-. ii, frag. 668; cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 99 (pp. 178. 
26-180. 8, Ziegler) and contrast ii. 4. 100 (p. 182. 8-10). On 
the Stoic “ ether ᾽ cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 187 (=S.V.F. 
ii, frag. 580) and note g on 922 B supra. 


Q5 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(928) ato μὲν' τῷ περὶ αὑτὴν" ἐμφερομένην πολὺν" 
δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἔχουσαν ἐ ἐν ᾧ" (λέγουσιν αὐτοὶ τοὺς 
mwywvias) δινεῖσθαι καὶ κομήτας. οὕτως οὐ ταῖς 
ῥοπαῖς σεσήκωται κατὰ βάρος καὶ κουφότητα τῶν 
σωμάτων ἕκαστον ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ κεκόσμηται. 
16. Λεχθέντων δὲ τούτων κἀμοῦ τῷ Λευκίῳ τὸν 
Η λόγον παραδιδόντος, ἐπὶ τὰς ἀποδείξεις βαδίζοντος 
τοῦ δόγματος, ᾿Αριστοτέλης μειδιάσας “ μαρτύρο- 
μαι a εἶπεν ἢ ὅτι τὴν πᾶσαν ἀντιλογίαν πεποίησαι 
πρὸς τοὺς αὐτὴν μὲν ἡμίπυρον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην 
ὑποτιθεμένους κοινῇ δὲ τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μὲν ἄνω 
τὰ δὲ κάτω ῥέπειν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν φάσκοντας. εἰ δ᾽ ἔστι 
τις ὁ λέγων κύκλῳ τε κινεῖσθαι κατὰ φύσιν τὰ 
ἄστρα καὶ πολὺ παρηλλαγμένης οὐσίας εἶναι τῶν 
Ε τεττάρων, οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ τύχης ἦλθεν ἐπὶ μνήμην ὑμῖν," 
ὥστ᾽ ἐμέ γεῖ πραγμάτων ἀπηλλάχ θαι." καὶ ζὑπο- 
λαβὼν 6)* Λεύκιος “ {(. . ΟΝ ὠγαθὲ ’᾿ εἶπεν “᾿ ἀλλὰ 
τἄλλα μὲν ἴσως ἄστρα καὶ τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν εἴς 
τινα φύσιν καθαρὰν καὶ εἰλικρινῆ καὶ τῆς κατὰ 
πάθος ἀπηλλαγμένην μεταβολῆς τιθεμένοις ὑμῖν" 


1 Benseler : ἐν -E, B. 

2 Bernardakis ; αὐτὴν -E, B. 

3 Madvig ; πολλὴν Ἔ, Β. 

4 Madvig : ἔχουσαν ἀνέμων -E, B. 

5 H.C. (ef. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 141 f.); vac. 25-E, 
26-B. 6. Amyot; ἡμῖν -E, 

7 Turnebus ; τε i: B. 

8 H.C. : καὶ vac. 8-E (at end of line), 9-B. 

9 λεύκιος vac. 9-K, 11-B. 

10 Turnebus ; ἡμῖν -E, B. 

2 The lexica give ‘ weigh ” or “‘ balance ” as the meaning 
of σεσήκωται., but the logic of the passage here shows that the 
word must be connected with σηκός, not with σήκωμα (ef. 
Hesychius : ἀποσηκώσας and σάκωσε). Amyot’s “ situez et 


96 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 928 


still a large amount of it about her in which she 
moves and much of it beneath her in which (they 
themselves assert that the bearded stars) and comets 
whirl. So it is not the inclinations consequent upon 
weight and lightness that have circumscribed the 
precincts 4 of each of the bodies, but their arrange- 
ment is the result of a different principle.” 

16. With these remarks I was about to yield the 
floor to Lucius,” since the proofs of our position were 
next in order ; but Aristotle smiled and said: “‘ The 
company is my witness that you have directed your 
entire refutation against those who suppose that the 
moon is for her part semi-igneous and yet assert of 
all bodies in common that of themselves they incline 
either upwards or downwards. Whether there is 
anyone, however, who says 5 that the stars move 
naturally in a circle and are of a substance far superior 
to the four substances here @ did not even accidentally 
come to your notice, so that I at any rate have been 
spared trouble.”’ And Lucius (broke in and) said : 
“. . . good friend, probably one would not for the 
moment quarrel with you and your friends, despite 
the countless difficulties involved, when you ascribe 
to the other stars and the whole heaven a nature pure 
and undefiled and free from qualitative change and 


colloquez ’’ and Kepler’s “ἢ quasi obvallata sunt ’’ render the 
sense correctly. 

ὃ ΤΆ was ostensibly in order to give Lucius time to collect 
his thoughts that Lamprias began the “ remarks ”’ which he 
has just concluded after ten paragraphs (see 923 F supra). 

¢ This is Aristotle, of course: De Caelo, 269 a 2-18, 270 a 
12-35; ef. [Aristotle|, De Mundo, 392 a 5-9 and De Placitis, 
887 p= Aétius, ii. 7. 5 (Dow. Graeci, p. 336). 

4 | have added this word in the translation in order to make 
it clear that ‘“‘ the four’ are the four sublunar substances, 
earth, water, air, and fire. 


VOU. ΧΙ E O7 


(928) 


929 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ 7 » 1 > a Ay 3 , 
καὶ κύκλον ayovoav’ du οὗ καὶ ἀτελευτήτου περι- 
φορᾶς (οἷόν τε φύσιν ἔχειν)" οὐκ av τις ἔν γε τῷ 
νῦν διαμάχοιτο καίτοι μυρίων οὐσῶν ἀποριῶν: ὅταν 
δὲ καταβαίνων ὃ λόγος οὗτος" θίγῃ τῆς σελήνης, 

> Ms ᾽7ὔ \ > / > > ~ \ \ / 
οὐκέτι φυλάττει τὴν ἀπάθειαν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ TO κάλλος 
» ,ὔ ~ / > > σ \ ΝΜ 3 
ἐκείνου τοῦ σώματος ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὰς ἄλλας ἀνω- 

/ \ \ > ~ » \ ~ \ 

μαλίας Kat διαφορὰς ἀφῶμεν αὐτὸ τοῦτο TO δια- 
φαινόμενον πρόσωπον πάθει τινὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἢ 
ἀναμίξει πως ἑτέρας ἐπιγέγονε. πάσχει δέ τι καὶ 

\ / > / \ \ > \ / 
TO μιγνύμενον: ἀποβάλλει yap τὸ εἰλικρινὲς βίᾳ 
τοῦ χείρονος ἀναπιμπλάμενον. αὐτῆς δὲ νώθειαν 
καὶ τάχους ἀμβλύτητα καὶ τὸ θερμὸν ἀδρανὲς καὶ 
ἀμαυρόν, (@)* κατὰ τὸν “lwva 


μέλας οὐ πεπαίνεται βότρυς, 


>) / / \ > / > ων \ / 
εἰς τί θησόμεθα πλὴν ἀσθένειαν αὐτῆς Kat πάθος, 
(εἰ πάθους)" ἀιδίῳ σώματι καὶ ὀλυμπίῳ μέτεστιν; 
“ / Ss / > / ~ \ Ss / 
ὅλως yap, ὦ φίλε ᾿Αριστότελες, γῆ μὲν οὖσα πάγ- 
καλόν τι χρῆμα καὶ σεμνὸν ἀναφαίνεται καὶ κεκο- 
σμημένον' ὡς δ᾽ ἄστρον ἢ φῶς ἢ ἤ τι σῶμα θεῖον καὶ 
οὐράνιον δέδια μὴ ἄμορφος ἢ καὶ ἀπρεπὴς καὶ 
καταισχύνουσα τὴν καλὴν ἐπωνυμίαν, εἴ γε τῶν ἐν 
Η. Ὁ. (ef. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 142); ἄγουσι -E, B. 
H. C.; vac. 17-E, 15-B. 
Wyttenbach ; οὕτω -E, B. 
Basiliensis ; ἀμαυρὸν, κατὰ -Εὶ : ἀμαυρὸν καὶ κατὰ -Β. 
5 Diibner ; ΠΩ ἀϊδίῳ νν ithout lacuna -H, 6.3... »Deest 


aliquid ’”? -Xylander ; (εἰ πάθη) -Turnebus, V ulcobius ; (εἰ 
πάθος) -Reiske, Wyttenbach. 


PrP ὦ ἢ " 





or Or Aétius, ii. 30. 6 (Dow. Graeci, p. 362 b ἐπ 4): ᾽Αρισ- 
τοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς (scil. σελήνης) ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ 
τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμ- 


98 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 928-929 


moving in a circle whereby (it is possible to have the 
nature) of endless revolution too; but let this doc- 
trine descend and touch the moon, and in her it no 
longer preserves the impassivity and beauty of that 
body. Not to mention her other irregularities and 
divergencies, this very face which she displays is the 
result of some alteration of her substance or of 
the admixture somehow of another substance.“ That 
which is subjected to mixture, however, is the subject 
of some affection too, for it loses its purity, since it is 
perforce infected by what is inferior to it. The moon’s 
sluggishness and slackness of speed and the feeble- 
ness and faintness of her heat (which), in the words 
of Ion, 


ripes not the grape to duskiness, ? 


to what shall we ascribe them except to her weakness 
and alteration, (if) an eternal and celestial ὁ body 
can have any part in (alteration) ? The fact is in 
brief, my dear Aristotle, that regarded as earth the 
moon has the aspect of a very beautiful, august, and 
elegant object ; but as a star or luminary or a divine 
and heavenly body she is, I am afraid, misshapen, 
ugly, and a disgrace to the noble title, if it is true 


atov. In fact in De Gen. Animal. 761 Ὁ 22 Aristotle does 
say that the moon shares in the fourth body, /.¢. fire. 

» At Quaest. Conviv. 658 c Plutarch quotes the whole line, 
Ion, frag. 57 (Nauck?). 

¢ For the epithet ὀλύμπιος used of the moon cf. 935 c infra 
and De Defectu Oraculorum, 416 £: of δ᾽ ὀλυμπίαν γῆν (5611. 
σελήνην) . . . προσεῖπον, and for the meaning attached to it 
cf. the etymology in the pseudo-Plutarchian De Vita et 
Poesi Homeri, 8, 95 [vii, p. 380. 17-20, Bernardakis] ; 
Pseudo-Plutarch in Stobaeus, Helogae, i. 22 (i, p. 198. 10 ff., 
Wachsmuth); [Aristotle], De Mundo, 400 a 6-9; Eustathius, 
In Iliadem, 38. 38. 


99 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(929) οὐρανῷ τοσούτων τὸ πλῆθος ὄντων μόνη φωτὸς 
ἀλλοτρίου δεομένη περίεισι' κατὰ Ἰ]αρμενίδην 


> \2 , \ δι ἂς ᾽ , 
B Qlvel TATTTALVOVOA προς αυγας ἠελίοιο. 


ε \ ive of teen > ΞΕ , Ξ \ ὭΣ. 
ὁ μὲν οὖν ἑταῖρος ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ᾿Ανα- 
ξαγόρειον ἀποδεικνὺς ὡς ᾿ ἥλιος ἐντίθησι τῇ σελήνῃ 
\ 
τὸ Aappov ηὐδοκίμησεν᾽ ἐγὼ δὲ ταῦτα “μὲν οὐκ 
ἐρῶ ἃ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν ἢ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἔμαθον ἑκὼν δὲν 
πρὸς τὰ λοιπὰ βαδιοῦμαι. φωτίζεσθαι τοίνυν τὴν 
, > ¢ “ 4 0 7, > , A 
σελήνην οὐχ ws vedov* ἢ κρύσταλλον ἐλλάμψει καὶ 
διαφαύσει τοῦ ἡλίου πιθανόν ἐστιν οὐδ᾽" αὖ κατὰ 
/ / \ \ [2 c ~ 
σύλλαμψίν τινα Kal συναυγασμὸν ὥσπερ αἱ δᾷδες 
αὐξομένου τοῦ φωτός. οὕτως" γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐν 
πὶ) ~ > 
νουμηνίαις ἢ διχομηνίαις ἔσται πανσέληνος ἡμῖν, εἰ 
C μὴ στέγει μηδ᾽ ἀντιφράττει. τὸν ἥλιον ἀλλὰ διίησιν' 
ὑπὸ μανότητος 7 κατὰ σύγκρασιν ἐκλάμπεις καὶ 
συνεξάπτει περὶ αὑτὴν τὸ φῶς. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν" 
1 EK, B?; περίεστι - Β΄. 
2 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ἀεὶ -E, B. 
3 Xylander ; ἔχων δὲ τοῦτο -E; ἔχων δὲ -B. 
δ 
4 Basiliensis ; ὕελλον - Εἰ ; ὕελον -B. 
5 Bernardakis ; οὔτ᾽ -Εἰ, Β. 6 Τὶ: οὕτω -Β. 


7 Madvig (implied by versions of Amyot and Kepler) ; 
δίεισιν -E, B. 
8. Sandbach (citing Appian, ot 56: τὴν ἑστίαν ... €k- 
λάμψαι πῦρ μέγα) ; ᾿εἰσλάμπει -F, 
9 Sandbach ; αὐτὴν -E, B. 
10 Bernardakis ; γάρ ἐστιν -EK, B. 


«Αἱ Adv. Coloten 1116 a Plutarch quotes Parmenides as 
having called the moon ἀλλότριον φῶς (= Parmenides, frag. 
B 14 [i, Ὁ». 243. 19, Diels-Kranz]) ; οὐ Empedocles, frag. B 45 
(i, p. 331. 9 [Diels-Kranz]). 

ὃ =Parmenides, frag. B 15 (i, p. 244. 3 [Diels-Kranz]), 
quoted also at Quaest. Rom. 282 B. 

¢ See note a on p. 48 supra. 


100 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 929 


that of all the host in heaven she alone goes about 
in need of alien light,” as Parmenides says 


Fixing her glance forever on the sun.? 


Our comrade in his discourse © won approval by his 
demonstration of this very proposition of Anaxagoras’s 
that “ the sun imparts to the moon her brilliance ᾿ ὦ: 
for my part, I shall not speak about these matters 
that I learned from you or in your company but shall 
gladly proceed to what remains. Well then, it is 
plausible that the moon is illuminated not by the 
sun’s irradiating and shining through her in the 
manner of glass ὁ or ice 7 nor again as the result of 
some sort of concentration of brilliance or aggrega- 
tion of rays, the light increasing as in the case of 
torches.2 Were that true, we should see the moon 
at the full on the first of the month no less than in the 
middle of the month, if she does not conceal and 
obstruct the sun but because of her subtility lets his 
light through or as a result of combining with it 
flashes forth and joins in kindling the light in herself.” 
Certainly her deviations or aversions* cannot be 

4 = Anaxagoras, frag. Β 18 (ii, p. 41. 5-7 [Diels- Kranz]). 

ΘΟ Aétius, ii. 25. an (Doz. Graeci, p. 356 Ὁ 21)=Ion of 
Chios, frag. A 7 (i, p . 33-34 iii Keeney 

7 See note ¢ on oe Ὁ τ σοῖς 

9 Cf. De Placitis, 891 r= Aétius, ii. 29. 4 (Dox. Graeci, 
p. 360 a 3-8 and Ὁ 5-11). 

» The latter was the theory of Posidonius as Plutarch 
indicates in 929 Ὁ infra; cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 101 (pp. 182. 
20-184. 3 [Ziegler]) and ii. 4. 104-105 (pp. 188. 5-190. 16). 

? τοι. the various deflections of the moon in latitude and 
the varying portion of the lunar hemisphere turned away from 
the sun as the moon revolves in her orbit. For these two 
variations in the explanation of the lunar phases cf. Cleo- 
medes, ii. 4. 100 (pp. 180. 26-182. 7 [Ziegler]), and Geminus, 
ix. 5-12 (p. 126. 5 ff. [Manitius]). 


101 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(929) ἐκκλίσεις οὐδ᾽ ἀποστροφὰς αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ὅταν ἢ 
διχότομος καὶ ἀμφίκυρτος ἢ μηνοειδής, αἰτιᾶσθαι 
\ \ / > \ \ / \ / 
περὶ τὴν σύνοδον ἀλλὰ κατὰ στάθμην, φησὶ Anpo- 
κριτος, ἱσταμένη τοῦ φωτίζοντος ὑπολαμβάνει καὶ 
σ 
δέχεται τὸν ἥλιον, ὥστ᾽ αὐτήν τε φαίνεσθαι καὶ 
/ 5 ~ , εἶ Ss «ς \ ~ -“ ~ 
διαφαίνειν ἐκεῖνον εἰκὸς ἦν. ἡ δὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ τοῦτο 
ποιεῖν: αὐτή τε γὰρ ἀδηλός ἐστι τηνικαῦτα κἀκεῖνον 
3 / \ ᾽ / / 
ἀπέκρυψε καὶ ἠφάνισε πολλάκις 


> , 1 Pen ve 
ἀπεσκέδασεν' δέ οἱ αὐγάς 
ὥς φησιν ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς 


Ὁ ἔστ᾽ aiav καθύπερθεν, ἀπεσκνίφωσε δὲ γαίης 
τόσσον ὅσον T εὖρος γλαυκώπιδος ἔπλετο μήνης" 


καθάπερ εἰς νύκτα καὶ σκότος οὐκ εἰς ἄστρον 
“ , 4 A \ > , a \ , 
ἕτερόζφν τιλ τοῦ φωτὸς ἐμπεσόντος. ὃ δὲ λέγει 
/ ¢ ς \ / ΄-“ 7 5 
Ποσειδώνιος, ὡς ὑπὸ βάθους τῆς σελήνης οὐ πε- 
~ ~ \ ~ « / ~ ~ 

ραιοῦται dv αὐτῆς" τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς, 

~ \ oA 
ἐλέγχεται καταφανῶς. ὃ yap ἀὴρ ἄπλετος ὧν καὶ 
βάθος ἔχων πολλαπλάσιον τῆς σελήνης ὅλος" ἐξ- 

~ / A A 
ηλιοῦται καὶ καταλάμπεται Tats avyais. ἀπολεί- 
/ \ a ?> / > / \ 
E πεται τοίνυν τὸ τοῦ ’EumedoxXéous, ἀνακλάσει τινὶ 
τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὴν σελήνην γίγνεσθαι τὸν ἐνταῦθα 
1 Xylander ; ἀπεσκεύασε -E, B. 
2 B; ὡς φησὶν -E. 
3 Ἐξ; ἔπλετο γλαυκώπιδος μήνης -B.- 
4 Papabasileios ; ἕτερο vac. 2-E, 4-B. 
5 Bs; διαυτῆς -E. 
6 E; ὅλως -B. 


α — Democritus, frag. A 89 a (ii, p. 105. 32-34 [Diels- 
Kranz]). For the meaning of κατὰ στάθμην cf. De Placitis, 


102 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 929 


alleged as the cause of her invisibility when she is in 
conjunction, as they are when she is at the half and 
gibbous or crescent; then, rather, © standing in a 
straight line with her illuminant,’ says Democritus, 
“she sustains and receives the sun,’ 5 so that it would 
be reasonable for her to be visible and to let him shine 
through. Far from doing this, however, she is at that 
time invisible herself and often has concealed and 
obliterated him. 


His beams she put to flight, 
as Empedocles says, 


From heaven above as far as to the earth, 
Whereof such breadth as had the bright-eyed moon 
She cast in shade,? 


just as if the light had fallen into night and darkness 
and not upon (an)other star. As for the explanation 
of Posidonius that the profundity of the moon pre- 
vents the light of the sun from passing through her 
to us,° this is obviously refuted by the fact that the 
air, though it is boundless and has many times the 
profundity of the moon, is in its entirety illuminated 
and filled with sunshine by the rays. There remains 
then the theory of Empedocles that the moonlight 
which we see comes from the moon’s reflection of 


883 a, 884 c. The words ὑπολαμβάνει καὶ δέχεται have a sexual 
meaning here; cf. 944 © infra, De Iside, 372 τὺ Amatorius, 
770 a, and Roscher, Uber Selene und Verwandtes, pp. 76 ff. 
ὃ =Empedocles, frag. B 42 (i, p. 330. 11-13 [Diels-Kranz]). 
¢ See note h on 929 c supra. In Cleomedes, ii. 4. 105 
(p. 190. 4-16 [Ziegler]) the refutation given by Plutarch here 
is answered or anticipated by the statement that the air does 
not have βάθος as the moon does, and from what follows it 
appears that by the βάθος of the moon Posidonius must have 
meant not mere spatial depth but a certain density as well. 


103 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(929) φωτισμὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς. ὅθεν οὐδὲ θερμὸν οὐδὲ Aap- 
πρὸν ἀφικνεῖται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὥσπερ ἦν εἰκὸς ἐξάψεως 
καὶ μίξεως {τῶν φώτων γεγενημένης. ἀλλ᾽ οἷον 
αἵ τε φωναὶ κατὰ τὰς ἀνακλάσεις ἀμαυροτέραν" 
ἀναφαίνουσι τὴν ἠχὼ τοῦ φθέγματος αἵ τε πληγαὶ 
τῶν ἀφαλλομένων βελῶν μαλακώτεραι προσπί- 
πτουσιν 


ἃ >» \3 , ’ 7, rate | 
ὡς αὐγὴ" τύψασα σεληναίης κύκλον εὐρὺν 


ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἀμυδρὰν ἀνάρροιαν ἴσχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς, 
διὰ τὴν κλάσιν ἐκλυομένης τῆς δυνάμεως. 
“Ὑπολαβὼν δ᾽ ὁ Σύλλας “ ἀμέλει ταῦτ᾽ 
F s “co” \ , A. Sans , ,ὕ 
εἶπεν “᾿ ἔχει τινὰς πιθανότητας. ὃ δ᾽ ἰσχυρότατόν 
ἐστι τῶν ἀντιπιπτόντων πότερον ἔτυχέ τινος παρα- 
μυθίας 7 παρῆλθεν ἡμῶν τὸν ἑταῖρον; ᾿᾿ “ τί τοῦτο᾽᾽᾿ 
μέ ce / 2) ¢ / coon \ \ \ / 
ἔφη “᾿ λέγεις ;᾿᾿ ὁ Λεύκιος “ ἢ τὸ πρὸς τὴν διχότομον 
> / ”) {{ / \ = 3. ¢ / Φ. 
ἀπορούμενον; πάνυ μὲν οὖν ᾿᾿ 6 Σύλλας εἶπεν" 
᾿ ἔχει γάρ τινα λόγον τὸ πάσης ἐν ἴσαις γωνίαις 
γιγνομένης ἀνακλάσεως, ὅταν ἡ σελήνη διχότομος 


᾽» 


1 Bernardakis ; vac. 4-E, 2-B. 2 Ὁ ; ἀμαυρωτέραν -B. 
3 Xylander : αὐτὴ -E, B 


¢ At 937 8 infra and De Pythiae Oraculis, 404 τὸ it is said 
that in being reflected from the moon the sun’s rays lose their 
heat entirely (cf. Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i. 19. 12-13 [p. 560. 
30 ff., Eyssenhardt]). Just above, however, at 929 a Plutarch 
ascribed to the moonlight a “‘ feeble ’’ heat, and so he does in 
Quaest. Nat. 918 a (ef. Aristotle, De Part. Animal. 680 a 33- 
34; [Aristotle], Problemata, 942 a 24-26; Theophrastus, 
De Causis Plant. iv. 14. 3). Kepler (Somnium sive Astro- 
nomia Lunaris, note 200) asserts that he had felt the heat 
from the rays of the full moon concentrated in a concave 
parabolic mirror; but the first real evidence of the moon’s 
heat was obtained by Melloni in 1846 by means of the newly 
invented thermopile. Cf. R. Pixis, Kepler als Geograph, 
p. 135; S. Giinther, Vergleichende Mond- und Erdkunde, 


104 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 929 


the sun. That is why there is neither warmth @ nor 
brilliance in it when it reaches us, as we should expect 
there to be if there had been a kindling or mixture 
of (the) lights (of sun and moon).’ To the contrary, 
just as voices when they are reflected produce an 
echo which is fainter than the original sound and the 
impact of missiles after a ricochet is weaker, 


Thus, haying struck the moon’s broad disk, the ray ° 


comes to us in a refluence weak and faint because the 
deflection slackens its force.” 

17. Sulla then broke in and said: ‘“ No doubt this 
position has its plausible aspects ; but what tells most 
strongly on the other side, did our comrade @ explain 
that away or did he fail to notice it?”’ “‘ What’s. 
that ἢ ᾿ said Lucius, “ or do you mean the difficulty 
with respect to the half-moon?” “ Exactly,” said 
Sulla, “‘ for there is some reason in the contention 
that, since all reflection occurs at equal angles,’ when- 


p- 82, n.3; Nasmyth-Carpenter, The Moon (London, 1885),. 
. 184. 

ἀν I have added the words “‘ sun and moon ”’ in the trans- 
lation to make explicit the meaning of (7dv) φώτων. For the 
theory referred to see note h on 929 c supra. 

¢ =Empedocles, frag. B 43 (i, p. 330. 20 [Diels-Kranz]). 

4 See 929 8 and note a on p. 48 supra. 

¢ This expression is intended to have the same sense as 
πρὸς ἴσας γίγνεσθαι γωνίας ἀνάκλασιν πᾶσαν (930 a infra), and 
both of them mean (pace Raingeard, p. 100, and Kepler in 
note 28 to his translation) “ἡ the angle of reflection is always 
equal to the angle of incidence.” Cf. [Euclid], Catoptrica a’ 
(Euclid, Opera Omnia, vii, p. 286. 21-22 [Heiberg]) with 
@lympiodorus, Jn Meteor. p. 212. 7=Hero Alexandrinus, 
Qpera, ii. 1, p. 368. 5 (Nix-Schmidt) and [Ptolemy], De 
Speculis, ii=Hero Alexandrinus, Opera, iis Πρ. 990. 19-13 
A Nix-Schmidt) ; and contrast the more precise formulation 
of Philoponus, Jn Meteor. p, 27, 34-35, --~ 
᾿ ᾿ 105 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


= 1 ~ ~ ι΄ 
(929) οὖσα μεσουρανῇ, μὴ φέρεσθαι τὸ φῶς ἐπὶ γῆς ἀπ᾽ 
> ~ > ~ ~ 
930 αὐτῆς ἀλλ᾽ ὀλισθαίνειν ἐπέκεινα τῆς γῆς. ὃ yap 
7 aa ~ ~ - ~ 
ἥλιος ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος ὧν ἅπτεται TH ἀκτῖνι τῆς 
λ / " ὃ \ \ | θ - \ ” 2 > \ / 
σελήνης" διὸ καὶ κλασθεῖσα πρὸς ἴσας" ἐπὶ θάτερον 
> - “ 
ἐκπεσεῖται πέρας καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει δεῦρο τὴν αὐγὴν 
Ἅ ὃ \ LA ᾿ LAA ” ~ 
ἢ διαστροφὴ μεγάλη καὶ παράλλαξις ἔσται τῆς 
/ “ 3 / / > }}) ce > \ \ 4999 
γωνίας, ὅπερ ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ νὴ Δί 
Ξ «ς / {{ \ a 3 > / 2) \ / 
εἶπεν ὁ Λεύκιος “᾿ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐρρήθη. Kal πρός ye 
Μενέλαον ἀποβλέψας ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι τὸν μαθη- 
ματικόν, “᾿ αἰσχύνομαι μὲν ᾿᾿ ἔφη “᾿ σοῦ παρόντος, 
> 7, ᾿ 7 , > ἜΣ \ “ 
ὦ φίλε Μενέλαε, θέσιν ἀναιρεῖν μαθηματικὴν ὥσπερ 
θεμέλιον τοῖς κατοπτρικοῖς ὑποκειμένην πράγμασιν 
ἀνάγκη δ᾽ εἰπεῖν ὅτι τὸ πρὸς ἴσας γίγνεσθαι" 
γωνίας ἀνάκλασιν πᾶσαν οὔτε φαινόμενον αὐτόθεν 
Β οὔθ᾽ ὁμολογούμενόν ἐστιν ἀλλὰ διαβάλλεται μὲν ἐπὶ 
τῶν κυρτῶν κατόπτρων, ὅταν ἐμφάσεις ποιῇ μεί- 
ζονας ἑαυτῶν πρὸς ἕν τὸ τῆς ὄψεως σημεῖον, 
διαβάλλεται δὲ τοῖς διπτύχοις κατόπτροις, ὧν ἐπι- 
1 Wyttenbach ; διχοτομοῦσα -K, B. 
* Benseler (cf. Cleomedes, p. 186. 18 [Ziegler]) : toa -E, B. 


3 Wyttenbach ; εἶπεν -E, B. 
4 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; τείνεσθαι -E, B. 


« Kepler in note 19 to his translation points out that this 
is true only if μεσουρανῇ “15 in mid-heaven ”’ refers not to the 
meridian but to the great circle at right-angles to the ecliptic. 

>» Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (p. 186. 7-14 [Ziegler]) introduces 
as σχεδὸν γνώριμον his summary of this argument against the 
theory that moonlight is merely reflected sunlight. 

© See note 6 on 929 F supra, 

4 It has been suggested that οὔθ᾽ ὁμολογούμενον is a direct 
denial of ὡμολογημένον ἐστὶ παρὰ πᾶσιν at the beginning of 
Hero’s demonstration (Schmidt in Hero Alexandrinus, Opera 
fed. Nix-Schmidt], ii. 1, p. 314. However that may be, the 
law is assumed in Proposition XIX of Euclid’s Optics, where 


106 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 929-930 


ever the moon at the half is in mid-heaven the light 
cannot move earthwards from her but must glance 
off beyond the earth. The ray that then touches the 
moon comes from the sun on the horizon “ and there- 
fore, being reflected at equal angles, would be pro- 
duced to the point on the opposite horizon and would 
not shed its light upon us, or else there would be 
great distortion and aberration of the angle, which 
is impossible.” ® “ Yes, by Heaven,” said Lucius, 
“ there was talk of this too’; and, looking at Mene- 
laus the mathematician as he spoke, he said: “ In 
your presence, my dear Menelaus, I am ashamed to 
confute a mathematical proposition, the foundation, 
as it were, on which rests the subject of catoptrics. 
Yet it must be said that the proposition, ἡ all reflec- 
tion occurs at equal angles, ° is neither self-evident 
nor an admitted fact.’ It is refuted in the case of 
convex © mirrors when the point of incidence of the 
visual ray produces images that are magnified in one 
respect ; and it is refuted by folding mirrors, either 


it is said to have been stated in the Catoptrics (Euclid, Opera 
Omnia, vii, p. 30. 1-3 [Heiberg|) ; and a demonstration of it 
is ascribed to Archimedes (Scholia in Catoptrica, 7 = Euclid, 
Opera Omnia, vii, p. 348. 17-22 [Heiberg]; cf. Lejeune, Jsis, 
xxxvili [1947], pp. 51 ff.). It is assumed by Aristotle in 
Meteorology, iii. 3-5 and possibly also by Plato (cf. Cornford, 
Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 154 f. on Timaeus, 46 8); cf. also 
Lucretius, iv. 322-323 and [Aristotle], Problemata, 901 b 21- 
22 and 915 b 30-35. Proposition XIX of Euclid’s Opties, 
referred to above, is supposed to be part of the ‘‘ Dioptries ”’ 
of Euclid which Plutarch cites at Non Posse Suaviter Vivi, 
1093 π (cf. Schmidt, op. cit. p. 304). 

* i.e. cylindrical, not spherical, convex mirrors ; ef. Class. 
Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 142-143 for the construction and mean- 
ing of this sentence. 

7 For such mirrors cf. [Ptolemy], De Speculis, xii= Hero 
Alexandrinus, Opera, 11. 1, p. 342. 7 ff. 


107 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(930) κλιθέντων' πρὸς ἄλληλα Kal γωνίας ἐντὸς γενομένης 
ἑκάτερον τῶν ἐπιπέδων διττὴν" ἔμφασιν ἀποδίδωσι 
καὶ ποιεῖ τέτταρας εἰκόνας ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς προσώπου, 
δύο μὲν ἀντιστρόφους (ev) τοῖς ἔξωθεν. [ἀριστεροῖς }? 
μέρεσι δύο δὲ «δεξιοφανεῖς ἀμαυρὰς ἐν βάθει τῶν 

Ο κατόπτρων. ὧν. τῆς γενέσεως τὴν αἰτίαν Πλάτων 
ἀποδίδωσιν. εἴρηκε γὰρ ὅτι τοῦ κατόπτρου ἔνθεν 
καὶ ἔνθεν ὕψος λαβόντος ὑπαλλάττουσιν αἱ ὄψεις 
τὴν ἀνάκλασιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων ἐπὶ θάτερα μετα- 
πίπτουσαι. εἴπερ οὖν τῶν ὄψεων εὐθὺ" πρὸς ἡμᾶς 
(ai μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιπέδων)" ἀνατρέχουσιν at δ᾽ ἐπὶ 
θάτερα μέρη τῶν κατόπτρων ὀλισθαίνουσαι πάλιν 
ἐκεῖθεν ἀναφέρονται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐ δυνατόν ἐστιν 
ἐν ἴσαις γωνίαις γίγνεσθαι πάσας ἀνακλάσεις, ὥστ᾽" 
ζένιοι μὲν τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς)" ὁμόσε χωροῦντες 

ἀξιοῦσιν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης ἐ ἐπὶ γῆν φερο- 

D μένοις ῥεύμασι"" τὴν ἰσότητα τῶν γωνιῶν ἀναιρεῖν, 
πολλῷ τοῦτ᾽ ἐκείνου πιθανώτερον εἶναι νομίζοντες. 


οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δεῖ τοῦτο χαρίζεσθαι τῇ πολλὰ δὴ 


1 Turnebus ; ὡς ἐπικριθέντων -E, B. 

2 Turnebus ; διττῆς -E, B. 

3 Emperius ; τοῖς ἔξωθεν ἀριστεροῖς -E, B. For ἀριστεροῖς 
Schmidt (Heronis Alexandrini Opera, ii. 1, pi i305, nap) 
suggests σαφεστέρας, Raingeard ἐναργεστέρας. but it was more 
probably merely a gloss by someone who misunderstood 
δεξιοφανεῖς. as Amyot, Wyttenbach, and Prickard misunder- 
stood it. 

4 Turnebus ; between κατόπτρων and ὧν E and B repeat 
from above ὅταν ἐμφάσεις ποιῇ . . . διαβάλλεται δέ, after 
which E has a space of 13 letters and B of 10. 

5 H.C. (ef. Timaeus, 46 B 7: ὅταν μεταπέσῃ . . . φῶς, 1.6. 
it is the visual ray that shifts) ; μεταπίπτουσαν -E, B. 

: Papabasileios ; ; εὐθὺς -E, B. 

7H. C.; vac. 20-E, 15-B; (ai μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἔξωθεν) -Adler, 
Zwei Beitrage, p. 8. 


108 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 930 


plane of which, when they have been inclined to each 
other and have formed an inner angle, exhibits a 
double image, so that four likenesses of a single object 
are produced, two reversed on the outer surfaces 
and two dim ones not reversed in the depth of the 
mirrors. The reason for the production of these 
images Plato explains,” for he has said that when the 
mirror is elevated on both sides the visual rays inter- 
change their reflection because they shift from one 
side to the other. So, if of the visual rays (some) 
revert straight to us (from the plane surfaces) while 
others glance off to the opposite sides of the mirrors 
and thence return to us again, it is not possible that 
all reflections occur at equal angles.’ Consequently 
(some people) take direct issue (with the mathe- 
maticians) and maintain that they confute the 
equality of the angles of incidence and reflection by 
the very streams of light that flow from the moon 
upon the earth, for they deem this fact to be much 
more credible than that theory. Nevertheless, sup- 
pose that this ὁ must be conceded as a favour to 


¢ Plutarch means Timaeus, 46 B-c, where Plato, however, 
describes a concave, cylindrical mirror, not a folding plane 
mirror. Plutarch apparently mistook the words ἔνθεν καὶ 
ἔνθεν ὕψη λαβοῦσα, by which Plato describes the horizontal 
curvature of the mirror, to mean that the two planes of a 
folding mirror were raised to form an angle at the hinge 
which joined them. 

δ See note 6 on 929 F supra. 

° 2,6. the * theory ” that the angle of reflection is always 
equal to the angle of incidence. 


8 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ὅσας -E, B. 
° H.C. (ef. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 143); no lacuna 
indicated in E, B. 


10 B; ῥήμασι -E. 
109 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(930) φίλῃ γεωμετρίᾳ καὶ δοῦναι, πρῶτον μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἠκριβωμένων ταῖς λειότησι συμπίπτειν ἐσόπτρων 
εἰκός ἐστιν ἡ δὲ σελήνη πολλὰς ἀνωμαλίας ἔχει καὶ 
τραχύτητας ὥστε τὰς αὐγὰς ἀπὸ σώματος μεγάλου 

/ Ψ > / > / \ 
προσφερομένας ὕψεσιν ἀξιολόγοις, ἀντιλάμψεις καὶ 
/ > > > / / > ~ / 
διαδόσεις ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνουσιν, ἀνακλᾶσθαί 
τε παντοδαπῶς καὶ περιπλέκεσθαι καὶ συνάπτειν 
αὐτὴν ἑαυτῇ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν οἷον ἀπὸ πολλῶν φερο- 
E μένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς κατόπτρων. ἔπειτα κἂν πρὸς 
αὐτῇ τῇ σελήνῃ τὰς ἀντανακλάσεις ἐν ἴσαις γωνίαις 
ποιῶμεν, οὐκ ἀδύνατον φερομένας ἐν διαστήματι 
/ 
τοσούτῳ Tas αὐγὰς κλάσεις ἴσχειν καὶ περιολισθή- 
σεις, ὡς συγχεῖσθαι' καὶ κάμπτειν" τὸ φῶς. ἔνιοι 
δὲ καὶ δεικνύουσι γράφοντες ὃ ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν φώτων 
ἐπὶ γῆν ἀφίησι κατὰ γραμμὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκεκλι- 
μένης" ὑποταθεῖσαν' σκευωρεῖσθαι δ᾽ ἅμα λέγοντι 
διάγραμμα, καὶ ταῦτα πρὸς πολλούς, οὐκ ἐνῆν. 
\ > Ὁ d+) ἐκ ce / ~ \ / 
To δ᾽ ὅλον ᾿᾿ ἔφη “ θαυμάζω πῶς τὴν διχό- 
τομον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς κινοῦσιν ἐμπίπτουσαν μετὰ τῆς 
ἀμφικύρτου καὶ τῆς μηνοειδοῦς. εἰ γὰρ αἰθέριον 
F ὄγκον ἢ πύρινον ὄντα τὸν τῆς σελήνης ἐφώτιζεν ὁ 


1 Wyttenbach : συγκεῖσθαι -E, B. 
2 Emperius 3 λάμπειν -E, B. 
3 H.C. ; ὑπὸ τὴν κεκλιμένην -K, B. 
4 Turnebus ; ὑποταθείσης -E, B. 





« With these words Plutarch means to refer to the effects 
of refraction ; cf. De Placitis, 894 c= Aétius, iii. 5. 5 (Dow. 
Graeci, p. 372. 21-26) ; Cleomedes, ii. 6. 124-125 (p. 224. 8-28 
[Ziegler]) ; : Alexander, In Meteor. p. 148. 7-10. 

> Cf. the argument given by Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (pp. 186. 
14-1 88. 7 [Ziegler]) and especially : ὅτι δ᾽ ἀπὸ παντὸς τοῦ κύκλου 
αὐτῆς he Alar ἡ γῆ, γνώριμον. εὐθέως γὰρ ἅμα τῷ τὴν πρώτην 
ἴτυν ἀνασχεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος φωτίζει τὴν γῆν, τούτων τῶν μερῶν 


110 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 930 


geometry, the dearly beloved! In the first place, 
it is likely to occur only in mirrors that have been 
polished to exact smoothness ; but the moon is very 
uneven and rugged, with the result that the rays 
from a large body striking against considerable 
heights which receive reflections and diffusions of 
light from one another are multifariously reflected 
and intertwined and the refulgence itself combines 
with itself, coming to us, as it were, from many 
mirrors. In the second place, even if we assume that 
the reflections on the surface of the moon occur at 
equal angles, it is not impossible that the rays as they 
travel through such a great interval get fractured 
and deflected “ so as to be blurred and to bend their 
light. Some people even give a geometrical demon- 
stration that the moon sheds many of her beams upon 
the earth along a line extended from the surface that 
is bent away from us? ; but I could not construct a 
geometrical diagram while talking, and talking to 
many people too. 

18. Speaking generally,” he said, “ I marvel that 
they adduce against us the moon's shining upon the 
earth at the half and at the gibbous and the crescent 
phases too.° After all, if the mass of the moon that 
is illuminated by the sun were ethereal or fiery, the 


αὐτῆς περικλινῶν ὄντων Kal πρὸς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχί, μὰ Δία, 
πρὸς τὴν γῆν ὁρώντων. For ἡ ἐκκεκλιμένη cf. Hippocrates, Art. 
98 (iv, p. 168. 18 [Littré]). 

© i.e. the moon at the half, gibbous, and crescent phases 
presents such a great difficulty for the Stoics themselves that 
it is strange for them to adduce these phenomena as refutation 
of the theory that the moon shines by reflected light. Wytten- 
bach’s conjecture, ἐκπίπτουσαν for ἐμπίπτουσαν, approved by 
Purser and apparently adopted by Prickard in his translation 
of 1918, betrays a misapprehension of the meaning of the 
LEXE. 


11] 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(930) ἥλιος, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέλειπεν αὐτῇ σκιερὸν ἀεὶ καὶ 


991 


ἀλαμπὲς ἡμισφαίριον πρὸς αἴσθησιν ἀλλ᾽, εἰ καὶ 
κατὰ μικρὸν ἔψαυε περιιών," ὅλην" ἀναπίμπλασθαι 
καὶ δι᾿ ὅλης τρέπεσθαι" τῷ φωτὶ πανταχόσε χω- 
ροῦντι δι᾽ εὐπετείας ἦν προσῆκον. ὅπου “γὰρ οἶνος 
ὕδατος "θιγὼν κατὰ" πέρας καὶ σταγὼν αἵματος εἰς 
ὑγρὸν ἐμπεσόντος ἀνέχρωσε πᾶν ἅμα" {τῷ ψαύειν)" 
φοινιχθὲν αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν ἀέρα λέγουσιν οὐκ ἀπορ- 
poats’ τισιν οὐδ᾽ ἀκτῖσι μεμιγμέναις ἀλλὰ τροπῇ 
καὶ μεταβολῇ κατὰ νύξιν ἢ ψαῦσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ φωτὸς 
ἐξηλιοῦσθαι," πῶς ἄστρον ἄστρου καὶ φῶς φωτὸς 
ἁψάμενον οἴονται μὴ κεράννυσθαιδ μηδὲ σύγχυσιν 
ποιεῖν δι᾿ ὅλου" καὶ μεταβολὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνα φωτίζειν 
μόνον ὧν ἅπτεται κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν; ὃν γὰρ 
ὁ ἥλιος περιιὼν κύκλον ἄγει καὶ περιστρέφει περὶ 

τὴν σελήνην, νῦν μὲν ἐπιπίπτοντα τῷ διορίζοντι τὸ 
ὁρατὸν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον νῦν δ᾽ ἀνιστάμενον 


-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 945 περὶ év-E, B; περιών -Stepha- 

nus (1624) after Leonicus. 

2 Stephanus (1624) ; πολλὴν -E, B. 

8 Turnebus ; 3 τρέφεσθαι -E, B. 

4 B; ara πέρας -E (at beginning of line). 

5 Turnebus ; 3 αἷμα - -Ε, 

6 Adler; vac. 8-E, 7- B. 

? Bernardakis ; ι΄ ee -K, B. 

8 ἢ ; ἐξηλλοιοῦσθαι -B. 

9. E>; κεραννῖσθαι -B. 

10 E,; διόλου -Β. 

11 FE; πρὸς -B. 


* For ἀπέλειπεν cf. 931 c infra. The dative with the verb 
is unobjectionable, cf. e.g. [Reg. et Imp. Apophthegm.] 178 Ὁ, 
195 F. 

> For κατὰ πέρας cf. De Communibus N otitis, 1080 τ 
(=S.V.F. ii, frag. 487): ψαύειν κατὰ πέρας τὰ σώματα. .. 
λέγουσι oa 8. VF. Ds ἌΡΗΝ 433 cited in note d on 930 F infra, 


112 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 930-931 


sun would not leave her“ a hemisphere that to our 
perception is ever in shadow and unilluminated ; on 
the contrary, if as he revolves he grazed her ever so 
slightly, she should be saturated in her entirety and 
altered through and through by the light proceeding 
easily in all directions. Since wine that just touches 
water at its surface ὃ or a drop of blood fallen into 
liquid at the moment (of contact) stains all the liquid 
red,° and since they say that the air itself is filled 
with sunshine not by having any effluences or rays 
commingled with it but by an alteration and change 
that results from impact or contact of the light,¢ how 
do they imagine that a star can come in contact with 
a star or light with light and instead of blending and 
producing a thorough mixture and change merely 
illuminate those portions of the surface which it 
touches ?& In fact, the circle which the sun in its 
revolution describes and causes to turn about the 
moon now coinciding with the circle that divides her 
visible and invisible parts and now standing at right 


The “ emendations ᾿ of Emperius and Papabasileios are con- 
sequently ill-advised. 

¢ Cf. De Communibus Notitiis, 1078 Ὁ-Ὲ (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 
480) and S.V.F. ii, frags. 473, 477, 479. 

4 Cf. S.V.F. ii, frag. 433 (Galen, In Hippocr. Epidem. vi 
Comment. iv, vol. xvii, B, p. 161 [Kiihn], especially : τοῖς ἄνω 
πέρασιν αὐτοῦ (scil. τοῦ ἀέρος) προσπιπτούσης τῆς ἡλιακῆς αὐγῆς 
ὅλος ἀλλοιοῦταί τε καὶ μεταβάλλεται συνεχὴς ὧν ἑαυτῷ). Cf. also 
note a on 922 E supra. 

ὁ Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 101 (p. 182. 20 ff. [Ziegler]) for the 
doctrine of Posidonius, which Plutarch here turns against 
him and the Stoics generally : τρίτη ἐστὶν αἵρεσις ἡ λέγουσα 
κιρνᾶσθαι αὐτῆς (scil. τῆς σελήνης) τὸ φῶς € ἔκ τε τοῦ οἰκείου καὶ 
τοῦ “ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τοιοῦτον γίνεσθαι οὐκ ἀπαθοῦς μενούσης 


αὐτῆς Baa ἀλλοιουμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ κατὰ 
τοιαύτην τὴν κρᾶσιν ἴδιον ἰσχούσης τὸ φῶς... .. Cf. thid. 104 
(p. 188. 4-7). 


113 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(931) πρὸς ὀρθὰς ὥστε τέμνειν ἐκεῖνον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου τε 
τέμνεσθαι, ἄλλαις κλίσεσι καὶ σχέσεσι τοῦ λαμπροῦ 
πρὸς τὸ σκιερὸν ἀμφικύρτους καὶ μηνοειδεῖς" ἀπο- 
διδόντα μορφὰς ἐν αὐτῇ, παντὸς μᾶλλον ἐπιδείκνυ- 
σιν οὐ σύγκρασιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπαφὴν οὐδὲ σύλλαμψιν 

Β ἀλλὰ περίλαμψιν αὐτῆς ὄντα τὸν φωτισμόν. ἐπεὶ 
δ᾽ οὐκ αὐτὴ φωτίζεται μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ δεῦρο τῆς 
αὐγῆς ἀναπέμπει τὸ εἴδωλον, ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον ¢ ἰσχυ- 
ρίσασθαι τῷ λόγῳ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας δίδωσιν. αἱ 
γὰρ ἀνακλάσεις γίγνονται πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀραιὸν οὐδὲ 
λεπτομερές, οὐδ᾽ ἔστι φῶς ἀπὸ φωτὸς" ἢ πῦρ ἀπὸ 
πυρὸς ἀφαλλόμενον [ἢ] νοῆσαι ῥᾷδιον, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸ 
ποιῆσον ἀντιτυπίαν τινὰ καὶ κλάσιν ἐμβριθὲς εἶναι 
καὶ πυκνὸν ἵνα πρὸς αὐτὸ πληγὴ καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
φορὰ γένηται. τὸν γοῦν αὐτὸν ἥλιον ὁ μὲν ἀὴρ 

ιΐησιν οὐ παρέχων ἀνακοπὰς οὐδ᾽ ἀντερείδων ἀπὸ 
δὲ ξύλων καὶ λίθων καὶ ἱματίων εἰς φῶς τιθεμένων 

C πολλὰς ἀντιλάμψεις καὶ περιλάμψεις ἀποδίδωσιν. 
οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν γῆν ὁρῶμεν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτιζο- 
μένην᾽ οὐ γὰρ εἰς βάθος ὥσπερ ὕδωρ οὐδὲ δι᾿ ὅλης 
ὥσπερ ἀὴρ διίησι τὴν αὐγήν, ἀλλ᾽ οἷος τὴν σελήνην 
περιστείχει κύκλος αὐτοῦ" Kal. ὅσον ὑποτέμνεται 
μέρος ἐκείνης τοιοῦτος ἕτερος περίεισι τὴν γῆν καὶ 
τοσοῦτον" φωτίζων ἀεὶ καὶ ἀπολείπων ἕτερον ἀφώ- 


Β ; νοειδεῖς -E (at top of page). 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ἐπιδεικνύουσιν -E, B. 
E ; ἀποφωτός -B. 
Deleted by Wyttenbach. 
5 -Anon., Aldine, R.J.94; αὐτῶν -E, B ; αὐτὴν -Turnebus, 
Vulcobius. 
8 EK; τοσοῦτο -B. 


ιωΦ ὦ we μ 


« Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 109-111 (pp. 196. 28-200. 23 
[Ziegler]). 


114 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 931 


angles to it so as to intersect it and be intersected by 
it, by different inclinations and relations of the bright 
part to the dark producing in her the gibbous and 
crescent phases,” conclusively demonstrates that her 
illumination is the result not of combination but of 
contact, not of a concentration of light within her 
but of light shining upon her from without. In that 
she is not only illuminated herself, however, but also 
transmits to us the semblance of her illumination. 
she gives us all the more confidence in our theory of 
her substance. There are no reflections from any- 
thing rarefied or tenuous in texture, and it is not easy 
even to imagine light rebounding from light or fire 
from fire ; but whatever is to cause a repercussion 
or a reflection must be compact and solid,? in order 
that it may stop a blow and repel it.“ At any rate, 
the same sunlight that the air lets pass without im- 
pediment or Eee is widely reflected and diffused 
from wood and stone and clothing exposed to its rays. 
The earth too we see iret by the sun in this 
fashion. It does not let the light penetrate its depths 
as water does or pervade it through and through as 
air does; but such as is the circle of the sun that 
moves around the moon and so great as is the part 
of her that it intercepts, just such a circle in turn 
moves around the earth, always illuminating just so 
much and leaving another part unilluminated,? for 


ὃ Here ἐμβριθές is used as the opposite of λεπτομερές (ef. 
Liddell and Scott, s.v. ἐμβρίθεια ii) as πυκνόν is of ἀραιόν. 

Pfs Cleomedes, li. 4. 101-102 (p. 184, 9-18 [Ziegler]). 
Cleomedes, assuming that the moon is μανόν, uses this as an 
argument against reflection; Plutarch, having established 
the necessity of reflection, uses the argument to support the 
contention that the moon is earthy. 

4 Of. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 108 (p. 194. 20 ff. [Ziegler]). 

115 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(9351) τιστον᾽ ἡμισφαιρίου γὰρ ὀλίγῳ δοκεῖ μεῖζον εἶναι 
τὸ περιλαμπόμενον ἑκατέρας. δότε δή μοι γεω- 
μετρικῶς εἰπεῖν πρὸς ἀναλογίαν ὡς εἰ, τριῶν ὄντων 
οἷς τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου φῶς πλησιάζει, “γῆς σελήνης ἀ ἀέρος, 
ὁρῶμεν οὐχ ὡς ὁ ἀὴρ μᾶλλον 1 ὴ ὡς ἢ γῆ φωτιζο- 
μένην τὴν σελήνην, ἀνάγκη φύσιν ἔχειν ὁμοίαν ἃ 
ταὐτὰ πάσχειν ὑπὸ ταὐτοῦ πέφυκεν. 

D 19. Ἐπεὶ δὲ πάντες ἐπήνεσαν τὸν Λεύκιον, “‘ εὖ 
γ᾽ )»)» ΜΝ ce 
ἔφην “᾿ ὅτι καλῷ λόγῳ καλὴν ἀναλογίαν προσ- 
ἐθῃκας: οὐ γὰρ ἀποστερητέον σε τῶν ἰδίων.᾽ ᾿ κἀ- 
κεῖνος ἐπιμειδιάσας “᾿ οὐκοῦν ᾿ ἔφη “καὶ δεύτερον 
ἀναλογίᾳ -“προσχρηστέον, ὅπως μὴ (τῷ»" ταὐτὰ 
πάσχειν ὑπὸ ταὐτοῦ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ταὐτὰ 
ποιεῖν ταὐτὸν ἀποδείξωμεν τῇ γῇ τὴν ᾿σελήνην 
προσεοικυῖαν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν οὕτως τῶν περὶ 
τὸν ἥλιον γιγνομένων ὅμοιόν ἐστιν ὡς ἔκλειψις 
ἡλίου δύσει δότε μοι, ταύτης ἔναγχος τῆς" συνόδου 
E μνησθέντες ἣ πολλὰ μὲν ἄστρα πολλαχόθεν τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ διέφηνεν εὐθὺς ἐκ μεσημβρίας ἀρξαμένη 
κρᾶσιν ΟῚ οἵαν τὸ λυκαυγὲς τῷ ἀέρι παρέσχεν: εἰ δὲ 


μή, Θέων'᾽ ἡμῖν οὗτος {τὸν " Mipveppov ἐπάξει καὶ 


1 δὲ -Wyttenbach. * Basiliensis ; lacking in E, B. 

3B; lacking in E. 4 Basiliensis ; θεῶν -E, B. 

5 Stephanus (1624) ; Μώμνερμον -Basiliensis ; ἐργομίμναμον 
-K, B. 


2 Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 109 (p. 198. 6-9 [Ziegler]). 

>» I have tried to preserve the contorted form in which 
Plutarch expresses the point that the moon, since it is affected 
by sunlight as the earth is and not as air is, must have the 
consistency of earth and not of air. 

© Concerning this eclipse see the Introduction, ὃ 3 supra 
on the date of the dialogue. 

4 For λυκαυγές see 941 vd infra and Lucian, Vera Hist. ii 
12. Prickard takes the κρᾶσις to refer to the degree of heat ; 
116 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 931 


the illuminated portion of either body appears to be 
slightly greater than a hemisphere.* Give me leave 
then to put it in geometrical fashion in terms of a 
proportion. Given three things approached by the 
light from the sun: earth, moon air ; if we see that 
the moon is illuminated not as the air is rather than 
as the earth, the things upon which the same agent 
produces the same effects must be of a similar 
ΤΠ ΠΕ ΤΡ 

19. When all had applauded Lucius, I said : “ Con- 
gratulations upon having added to an elegant account 
an elegant proportion, for you must not be defrauded 
of what belongs to you.” He smiled thereat and 
said: “‘ Well then proportion must be used a second 
time, in order that we may prove the moon to be like 
the earth not only because the effects of the same 
agent are the same on both but also because the 
effects of both on the same patient are the same. 
Now, grant me that nothing that happens to the sun 
is so like its setting as a solar eclipse. You will if you 
call to mind this conjunction recently which, beginning 
just after noonday, made many stars shine out from 
rmaany parts of the sky ὁ and tempered the air in the 
manner of twilight.? If you do not recall it, Theon 
here will cite us Mimnermus’ and Cydias’ and 


Raingeard, like Amyot and Wyttenbach, takes it to refer to 
colour or light. Either is possible, but I think a reference to 
colour the more probable; for κρᾶσις used of colour ef. 
Quaest. Conviv. 647 c. 

¢ Cf. Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. Diehl’, i. 1, pp. 50-57, 
and Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus, i, pp. 82-103 ; Mimnermus 
is mentioned in the pseudo-Plutarchean De Musica, chap. 8, 
LSS ae: 

7 Cf. Plato, Charmides, 155 Ὁ: Edmonds, Lyra Graeca, 
11, p. 68; Wilamowitz, Textgeschichte der griechischen 
Lyriker, Ὁ. 40, n. 1. 


117 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(931) τὸν Κυδίαν καὶ τὸν ᾿Αρχίλοχον πρὸς δὲ τούτοις TOV 
Στησίχορον καὶ τὸν [Πίνδαρον ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν 
ὀλοφυρομένους ᾿ ἄστρον' “φανερώτατον “κλεπτό- 
μενον ᾿ καί μέσῳ ἄματι" νύκτα γινομένην ᾿ καὶ τὴν 

F ἀκτῖνα τοῦ ἡλίου ‘ σκότους" ἀτραπὸν (eooupevav) 4 
φάσκοντας ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὸν Ὅμηρον “νυκτὶ καὶ 
ζόφῳ τὰ πρόσωπα᾽ κατέχεσθαι τῶν ἀνθρώπων᾽ 
λέγοντα καὶ ᾿ τὸν ἥλιον ἐξαπολωλέναι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
περὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ (αἰνιττόμενον ὡς τοῦτο 
γίγνεσθαι πέφυκε" τοῦ μὲν φθίνοντος μηνὸς τοῦ δ᾽ 
ἱσταμένου. τὰ λοιπὰ δ᾽ οἶμαι ταῖς μαθηματικαῖς 
ἀκριβείαις εἰς τὸν (σαφῆ λόγον) ἐξῆχθαι καὶ βέ- 
βαιον ὡς ἥ γε νύξ ἐστι σκιὰ γῆς ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις τοῦ 
ἡλίου σκιὰ σελήνης ὅταν ἡ ὄψις ἐν αὐτῇ γένηται. 
δυόμενος γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀντιφράττεται πρὸς τὴν 
ὄψιν ἐκλιπὼν δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς σελήνης: ἀμφότεραι δ᾽ 

992 εἰσὶν ἐπισκοτήσεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ μὲν δυτικὴ τῆς γῆς ἡ δ᾽ 
ἐκλειπτικὴ τῆς σελήνης τῇ σκιᾷ καταλαμβανούσης 


1 Bergk ; τὸν -Εἰ, B. 2 Leonicus ; ἅμα τὴν -E, B. 

3B; σκότος -E. 4 Adler; vac. 16 -E, B. 

5 Xylander ; πρῶτα -E, B. 

6 H.C. (cf. De Vita et Poesi Homeri, § 4 [vii, p. 332. 9, 
Bernardakis]) ; vac. 14-E, 12-B. 

7 H.C. (ef. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 143 f.)3 vaei 
7-E, 9-B. 


« Cf. Archilochus, frag. 74 (Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ed. 
Diehl,4.;3,4p, Sas Edmonds, Elegy and Tambus, ii, p. 134). 

ae Ot Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 12, § 54: “ quo in metu fuisse 
Stesichori et Pindari vatum sublimia ora palam est deliquio 
solis.”’ 

¢ =Pindar, Paean, ix. 2-3: ἄστρον ὑπέρτατον ἐν ἁμέρᾳ κλε- 
πτόμενον. 

a Peele Stesichorus, cf. Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci', 
iii, p. 229 (frag. 73), and Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus, i, p. 
102, τὶ: ae 


118 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 931-932 


Archilochus 5 and Stesichorus besides and Pindar,? 
who during eclipses bewail ‘ the brightest star bereft’ ¢ 
and ΄ at midday night falling ᾿ ὦ and say that the beam 
of the sun ‘ (is sped) the path of shade ὁ ; and to 
crown all he will cite Homer, who says ‘ the faces 
of men are covered with night and gloom ’* and‘ the 
sun has perished out of heaven ’’ speaking with refer- 
ence to the moon and (hinting that) this naturally 
occurs 


When waning month to waxing month gives way.” 


For the rest, I think that it has been reduced by the 
precision of mathematics to the (clear) and certain 
(formula) that night is the shadow of earth? and the 
eclipse of the sun is the shadow of the moon’ when- 
ever the visual ray encounters it. The fact is that 
in setting the sun is screened from our vision by the 
earth and in eclipse by the moon ; both are cases of 
occultation, but the yespertine is occultation by the 
earth and the ecliptic by the moon with her shadow 


4 Cf. Pindar, Paean, ix. 5: ἐπίσκοτον ἀτραπὸν ἐσσυμένα. 
For the genitive σκότους cf. De Audiendis Poetis, 36 ©, and 
De Latenter Vivendo, 1130 8. 

f Adapted from Odyssey, xx. 351-352. 

9 Odyssey, xx. 356-357. 

2 Odyssey, xix. 307. For this interpretation of the Homeric 
lines cf. De Vita et Poesi Homeri, chap. 108 (vii, p. 388. 15 ff. 
[Bernardakis]), and Heraclitus, Quaestiones Homericae, ὃ 75 
(pp. 98. 20-99. 18 [Oelmann)). 

? Cf. De Primo Frigido, 953 a and Plat. Quaest. 1006 F, 
where on Timaeus, 40 c Plutarch quotes Empedocles to this 
effect. Aristotle refers to the definition, Topics, 146 b 28 and 
Meteorology, 345 b 7-8. 

i Cf. the lines of Empedocles quoted at 929 c-p supra. In 
De Placitis, 890 r= Aétius, ii. 24. 1 this explanation of solar 
eclipses is ascribed to Thales—quite unhistorically, as the 
subsequent entries show. 


119 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(932) ) τὴν ὄψιν. ἐκ δὲ τούτων εὐθεώρητον τὸ γιγνόμενον. 
εἰ γὰρ ὅμοιον τὸ πάθος, ὅμοια τὰ ποιοῦντα' τῷ 
γὰρ αὐτῷ ταὐτὰ συμβαίνειν ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀναγ- 
καῖόν ἐστιν. εἰ δ᾽ οὐχ οὕτως" τὸ περὶ τὰς ἐκλείψεις 
σκότος βύθιόν ἐστιν οὐδ᾽ ὁμοίως τῇ νυκτὶ “πιέζει 
τὸν ἀέρα, μὴ θαυμάζωμεν" οὐσία μὲν γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ 
τοῦ τὴν νύκτα ποιοῦντος καὶ τοῦ τὴν ἔκλειψιν σώ- 
ματος μέγεθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἴσον, ἀλλ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους μὲν 
ἑβδομηκοστόδυον οἶμαι φάναι μόριον εἶναι τὴν σε- 

Β λήνην ᾿Αναξαγόραν δ᾽ ὅση Πελοπόννησος ᾿Αρί- 
σταρχος δὲ {τὴν διάμετρον τῆς γῆς πρὸς" τὴν 
διάμετρον τῆς σελήνης λόγον ἔ ἔχουσαν ἀποδείκνυσιν 
ὃς ἐλάττων μὲν ἢ ἑξήκοντα πρὸς δεκαεννέαἶ μείζων 
δ᾽ ἢ ὡς" ἑκατὸν ὀκτὼ πρὸς τεσσαράκοντα τρί 
ἐστίν. ὅθεν ἡ μὲν γῆ παντάπασι τῆς ὄψεως τὸν 
ἥλιον ἀφαιρεῖται διὰ μέγεθος (μεγάλη γὰρ ἡ ἐπι- 
πρόσθησις καὶ χρόνον ἔχουσα τὸν τῆς νυκτός), ἡ 
δὲ σελήνη κἂν ὅλον ποτὲ κρύψῃ τὸν ἥλιον, οὐκ ἔχει 
χρόνον οὐδὲ πλάτος ἡ ἔκλειψις ἀλλὰ περιφαίνεταί 
τις αὐγὴ περὶ τὴν ἴτυν οὐκ ἐῶσα βαθεῖαν “γενέσθαι 
τὴν σκιὰν καὶ ἄκρατον. ᾿Αριστοτέλης δ᾽ ὁ παλαιὸς 

C αἰτίαν τοῦ πλεονάκις τὴν σελήνην ἐκλείπουσαν ἢ 

E ; οὕτω -Β. 

{τῆς γῆς) -Turnebus, Vulcobius. 

Β ; Πελοπόνησος -E. 

Bernardakis (cf. Aristarchus, p. 408. 21 [Heath]). 


Turnebus (cf. Stephanus [1624]); δέ, καὶ ἐννέα -E, B 
Aldine, Basiliensis. 6 Bernardakis ; δέ πως -E, B. 


em ON μὰ 


σι 


9 


« Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 94-95 (p. 172. 6-10 [Ziegler]) and 
ii. 4. 106 (p. 192. 16-24); Geminus, x (pp. 130. 11-132. 12 
[ Manitius]). 

> I know of no other reference to such an estimate. 

¢ According to Hippolytus, Refut. i. 8. 6-10 (=Doz. 
Graeci, p, 562=Anaxagoras, frag, A 42 [ii, p. 16. 16-31, 
120 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 932 


intercepting the visual τὰν. What follows from this 
is easy to perceive. If the effect is similar, the agents 
are similar, for it must be the same agents that cause 
the same things to happen to the same subject. Nor 
should we marvel if the darkness of eclipses is not so 
deep or so oppressive of the air as night is. The reason 
is that the body which produces night and that which 
produces the eclipse while the same in substance are 
not equal in size. In fact the Egyptians, I think, say 
that the moon is one seventy-second part (of the 
earth), and Anaxagoras that it is the size of the 
Peloponnesus ©; and Aristarchus demonstrates that 
the ratio of (the earth’s diameter to) the diameter 
of the moon is smaller than 60 to 19 and greater than 
108 to 43.4 Consequently the earth because of its 
size removes the sun from sight entirely, for the 
obstruction is large and its duration is that of the 
night. Even if the moon, however, does sometimes 
cover the sun entirely, the eclipse does not have 
duration or extension ; but a kind of light is visible 
about the rim which keeps the shadow from being 
profound and absolute.’ The ancient Aristotle gives 
this as a reason besides some others why the moon 


Diels-Kranz|), Anaxagoras said that the sun exceeds the 
Peloponnesus in size (cf. Aétius, ii. 21. 3 and Diogenes 
Laertius, ii. 8). The statement here concerning the moon is 
missing from Diels-Kranz. 

4 This is Proposition 17 of Aristarchus’s essay, “‘ On the 
Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon ” (cf. Heath’s edi- 
tion and translation in his Aristarchus of Samos, pp. 351 ff.). 
Although Plutarch does not say that this contradicts Stoic 
doctrine, the older, orthodox Stoics held that the moon as 
well as the sun is larger than the earth (De Placitis, 891 c= 
Aétius, ii. 26. 1=S.V.F. ii, frag. 666; cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
ii. 11 [8]. 49). 

¢ Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 105 (p. 190. 17-26). 


121 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(932) τὸν ἥλιον καθορᾶσθαι πρὸς ἄλλαις τισὶ Kal ταύτην 
3 / [χὰ \ > / / > / 
ἀποδίδωσιν" ἥλιον yap ἐκλείπειν σελήνης ἀντιφράξει 

1 κ᾿ \ 
σελήνην δὲ (γῆς, πολλῷ μείζονος οὔσης.) δὲ 
Ποσειδώνιος ὁρισάμενος οὕτως" ᾿ τόδε τὸ πάθος 
ἔκλειψίς ἐστιν ἡλίου" σύνοδος σκιᾶς σελήνης οἷς" 
[τὴν ἔκλειψιν }" (ἂν γῆς μέρεσι κατασκιάζῃ")" ἐκεί- 
νοις γὰρ μόνοις ἔκλειψίς, ἐστιν ὧν ἂν ἡ σκιὰ τῆς 
σελήνης καταλαβοῦσα τὴν ὄψιν ἀντιφράξῃ" πρὸς 
τὸν ἥλιον ᾿" ὁμολογῶν δὴ" σκιὰν τῆς σε; ἤνης 
φέρεσθαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι λέγειν ἑαυτῷ 
καταλέλοιπεν. ἄστρου δὲ σκιὰν ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι" 
τὸ γὰρ ἀφώτιστον σκιὰ λέγεται τὸ δὲ φῶς οὐ ποιεῖ" 
σκιὰν ἀλλ᾽ ἀναιρεῖν πέφυκεν. 

D 20. ᾿Αλλὰ 67) Tee ἔφη ᾿ “μετὰ τοῦτο τῶν τε- 
κμηρίων ἐλέχθη; Kayo “τὴν αὐτὴν ᾿᾿ ἔφην 
665 9 / ς / ” }) 4," > ~ ”) > 

ἐλάμβανεν ἡ σελήνη ἔκλειψιν. ὀρθῶς ᾿᾿ εἶπεν 
ἂν. / 9 > \ \ / e ΄ 10 

ὑπέμνησας." ἀλλὰ δὴ πότερον ὡς πεπεισμένων 
ὑμῶν καὶ τιθέντων ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην ὑπὸ τοῦ 
σκιάσματος ἁλισκομένην ἤδη τρέπωμαι" πρὸς τὸν 


1 Adler; σελήνην δὲ vac, 28-E (in two lines), 9ὅ-Β. 
2 EE; ys -B. 
3 Excised by Prickard (1911). 
4 H.C.; vac. 22-K, 11-B. 
5 Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ἀντιφράξαι -E, B. 
ps Fa Ge 3 δὲ -E, B; ye -Wyttenbach. 

i ποιεῖν - -Β. 

8 E; τί δὴ -Β. 
9. Β; ὑπόμνησας -E. 
10. FE ; πεποιημένων -B. 
11 Wyttenbach ; τρέπονται -E, B. 


« = Aristotle, frag. 210 (Rose). The reference is not to 
De Caelo, 293 b 20-25, for in that passage Aristotle gives not 
his own opinion but that of some Pythagoreans (cf. Cherniss, 


122 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 932 


is observed in eclipse more frequently than the sun, 
saying that the sun is eclipsed by interposition of the 
moon but the moon (by that of the earth, which is | 
much larger).? Posidonius gave this definition : “ The 
following condition is an eclipse of the sun, conjunc- 
tion of the moon’s shadow with whatever (parts of 
the earth it may obscure), for there is an eclipse only 
for those whose visual ray the shadow of the moon 
intercepts and screens from the sun ὃ ;—since he 
concedes then that a shadow of the moon falls upon 
us, he has left himself nothing to say that I can see. 
Of a star there can be no shadow, for shadow means 
the unlighted and light does not produce shadow but 
naturally destroys it.° 

20. Well now,” he said, “ which of the proofs came 
after this?” And I replied, “ That the moon is 
subject to the same eclipse.”’ “ Thank you,” he said, 
“for reminding me; but now shall I assume that 
you have been persuaded and do hold the moon to 
be eclipsed by being caught in the shadow and so 


Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, pp. 198-199, 
and Aétius, ii. 29. 4 cited there). For the terminology σελήνης 
or γῆς ἀντίφραξις cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post. 90 a 15-18, and 
with the whole passage cf. Pseudo-Alexander, Problem. 2. 46 
(quoted by Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, § 194, p. 222), 
and Philoponus, Jn Meteor. p. 15. 21-23. 

ὃ Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 94-95 (p. 172. 6-17 [Ziegler]) and 
98 (p. 178. 13-24), ii. 4. 106 (p. 192. 14-20). 

¢ Posidonius ranked the moon as a “star’”’: ef. Arius 
Didymus, Epitome, frag. 32 (Dox. Graeci, p. 466. 18-21), and 
Edelstein, 4.J.P. lvii (1936), p. 297. For the theory that the 
light of the moon is a product of her own proper light and 
the solar light which produces an alteration in her cf. Cleo- 
medes, ii. 4. 101 (pp. 182. 20-184. 3 [Ziegler]) and 104 (p. 188. 
5-27), the latter of which indicates how the present contention 
of Plutarch could have been answered from the point of view 
of Posidonius. 


123 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(932) λόγον ἢ βούλεσθε μελέτην ποιήσωμαι καὶ ἀπό- 
δειξιν ὑμῖν τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἕκαστον ἀπαριθ- 

7 ,.9 ce \ Lt 39 Ss ¢ / ce / 
μήσας; νὴ Δί εἶπεν ὁ Θέων “ τούτοις 
ἐμμελέτησον. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ πειθοῦς τινος δέομαι 
ταύτῃ μόνον ἀκηκοὼς ὡς ἐπὶ μίαν [μὲν] εὐθεῖαν 
EK τῶν τριῶν σωμάτων γιγνομένων, γῆς καὶ ἡλίου 
καὶ σελήνης, at ἐκλείψεις, συντυγχάνουσιν" ἡ γὰρ 
γῆ τῆς σελήνης ἢ πάλιν ἡ σελήνη τῆς γῆς ἀφαι- 
ρεῖται τὸν ἥλιον: ἐκλείπει γὰρ οὗτος μὲν σελήνης 
σελήνη δὲ γῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῶν τριῶν ἱσταμένης: ὧν 
γίγνεται τὸ μὲν ἐν συνόδῳ τὸ δ᾽ ἐν διχομηνίᾳ.᾽ 

ΧΕ 7, ” ra \ , ᾿ΕΝ, τὶ ΄, 
καὶ ὁ Λεύκιος ἔφη “ σχεδὸν μέντοι' τῶν λεγομένων 
κυριώτατα ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί. πρόσλαβε" δὲ πρῶτον, εἰ 
βούλει, τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς σκιᾶς λόγον. 
ἔστι γὰρ κῶνος" ἅτε δὴ μεγάλου πυρὸς ἢ φωτὸς 

“ 9 / a“ \ / 
σφαιροειδοῦς ἐλάττονα σφαιροειδῆ δὲ περιβάλλοντος 
ὄγκον. ὅθεν ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσι τῆς σελήνης αἱ περι- 
γραφαὶ τῶν μελαινομένων πρὸς τὰ λαμπρὰ τὰς 
ἀποτομὰς περιφερεῖς ἴσχουσιν: ἃς γὰρ ἂν στρογ- 
F γύλον στρογγύλῳ προσμῖξαν ἢ δέξηται τομὰς ἢ 
παράσχῃ, πανταχόσε χωροῦσαι δι᾽ ὁμοιότητα, γίγ- 
νονται κυκλοτερεῖς. δεύτερον οἶμαί σε γιγνώσκειν 
1 BE, B1; ποιήσωμεν -B?. 
2 Aldine, Basiliensis ; ὑμῶν -E, B. 
3 Deleted by Wyttenbach. 
4B; μέν τι -E. 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94, Wyttenbach ; πρόλαβε -E, B. 


6 Xylander ; κοινός -Εἰ, B. 
7 H.C. 3; μὴ -E, Β : καὶ -Aldine, Basiliensis. 





* The argument that the moon is earthy, which at the 
beginning of chap. 19 (931 Ὁ) Lucius stated in the form of a 
proportion. 

» Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 115 (p. 208. 9-12 [Ziegler]) for the 


124 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 932 


turn straightway to my argument,® or do you prefer 
that I give you a lecture and demonstration in which 
each of the arguments is ennumerated?” “ By 
heaven,” said Theon, “ do give these gentlemen a 
lecture. As for me, I want some persuasion as well, 
since I have only heard it put this way : when the 
three bodies, earth and sun and moon, get into a 
straight line, eclipses take place because the earth 
deprives the moon or the moon, on the other hand, 
deprives the earth of the sun, the sun being eclipsed 
when the moon and the moon when the earth takes 
the middle position of the three, the former of which 
cases occurs at conjunction and the latter at the 
middle of the month.”’® Whereupon Lucius said, 
“ Those are roughly the main points, though, of what 
is said on the subject. Add thereto first, if you will, 
the argument from the shape of the shadow. It is 
a cone, as is natural when a large fire or light that is 
spherical circumfuses a smaller but spherical mass.° 
This is the reason why in eclipses of the moon the 
darkened parts are outlined against the bright in 
segments that are curved,’ for whenever two round 
bodies come into contact the lines by which either 
intersects the other turn out to be circular since they 
have everywhere a uniform tendency.’ Secondly, 
eclipse of the moon and ii. 4. 106 (p. 192. 14-20) for the 
eclipse of the sun; cf. also Theon of Smyrna, p. 193. 23 ff. 
and p. 197. 22 ff. (Hiller) ; Geminus, viii. 14 (p. 104. 23 ff. 
[ Manitius]). 

¢ See notes a and 6 on 923 B supra. 

4 Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 118 (Ὁ. 214. 2-12 [Ziegler]) ; Aris- 
totle, De Caelo, 297 b 23-30. 

¢ i.e. the intersecting lines are always ares of a circle 
because the degree of curvature of each of the two surfaces 


is at every point similar. For this interpretation cf. Class. 
Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 144. 


E25 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


a / \ >’ / ~ / \ \ 
(932) ὅτι σελήνης μὲν ἐκλείπει πρῶτα μέρη τὰ πρὸς 
3 / « / \ \ \ / A > ς 
ἀπηλιώτην ἡλίου δὲ τὰ πρὸς δύσιν, κινεῖται δ᾽ ἡ 
μὲν σκιὰ τῆς γῆς ἐπὶ τὴν ἑσπέραν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνα- 
C λ ~ nA ὃ \ \ λ "4 > / .] A \ > 
933 τολῶν nALos ὃε καὶ σελήνη τοὐναντίον ἐπὶ τὰς aVa- 
τολάς. ταῦτα γὰρ ἰδεῖν τε παρέχει τῇ αἰσθήσει τὰ 
φαινόμενα κἀκ λόγων οὐ πάνυ Ti μακρῶν μαθεῖν 
~ ΄ > 
ἔστιν. ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἡ αἰτία βεβαιοῦται τῆς ἐκ- 
/ ’ \ \ “ \ > / 
λείψεως. ἐπεὶ yap ἥλιος μὲν ἐκλείπει καταλαμ- 
~ ~ ~ \ 
Bavopevos σελήνη δ᾽ ἀπαντῶσα τῷ ποιοῦντι τὴν 
» ΕΝ ἝΞ > > ἐ , ε ν 9 
ἔκλειψιν, εἰκότως μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀναγκαίως ὁ μὲν 
ὄπισθεν ἁλίσκεται πρῶτον ἡ δ᾽ ἔμπροσθεν: ἄρχεται 
γὰρ ἐκεῖθεν ἡ ἐπιπρόσθησις ὅθεν πρῶτον [per]? 
> / \ > ~ > / > > / \ 
ἐπιβάλλει τὸ ἐπιπροσθοῦν᾽ ἐπιβάλλει δ᾽ ἐκείνῳ μὲν 
ἀφ᾽ ἑσπέρας 7 σελήνη πρὸς αὐτὸν ἁμιλλωμένη 
ταύτῃ δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνατολῶν <1) σκιὰ τῆς γῆς)" ὡς 
” 
πρὸς τοὐναντίον ὑποφερομένη. τρίτον τοίνυν ἔτι 
Β τὸ τοῦ χρόνου λάβε καὶ τὸ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν 
ἐκλείψεων αὐτῆς. ὑψηλὴ μὲν ἐκλείπουσα καὶ ἀπό- 
γειος ὀλίγον ἀποκρύπτεται" χρόνον πρόσγειος δὲ 
καὶ ταπεινὴ αὐτὸ τοῦτο παθοῦσα σφόδρα πιέζεται 
\ 
καὶ βραδέως ἐκ τῆς σκιᾶς ἄπεισι, καίτοι ταπεινὴ 
μὲν οὖσα τοῖς μεγίστοις χρῆται κινήμασιν ὑψηλὴ 
δὲ τοῖς ἐλαχίστοις. ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴτιον ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τῆς 
διαφορᾶς ἐστιν: εὐρυτάτη γὰρ οὖσα περὶ τὴν βάσιν, 
~ > 
ὥσπερ οἱ κῶνοι, συστελλομένη τε κατὰ μικρὸν εἰς 
/ ὦ 
ὀξὺ τῇ κορυφῇ καὶ λεπτὸν ἀπολήγει πέρας. ὅθεν 
ἡ σελήνη ταπεινὴ μὲν ἐμπεσοῦσα τοῖς μεγίστοις 
1 Ἐς τοι - Β. 5. Wyttenbach ; τὸ μὲν -Εἰ, B. 
3 Deleted by Wyttenbach. 4 Adler; no lacuna -F, B. 
5 E; omitted by B. 6 FE, B?; ἀπολείπεται -B?. 
? E, B; ταὐτὸ τοῦτο -Benseler (‘‘ le mesme ” -Amyot). 


« Cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 144; Cleomedes, ii. 6. 116 
126 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 932-933 


I think that you are aware that of the moon the east- 
ward parts are first eclipsed and of the sun the west- 
ward parts and that, while the shadow of the earth 
moves from east to west, the sun and the moon move 
contrariwise towards the east.” This is made visible 
to sense-perception by the phenomena and needs no 
very lengthy explanations to be understood, and these 
phenomena confirm the cause of the eclipse. Since 
the sun is eclipsed by being overtaken and the moon 
by encountering that which produces the eclipse, it 
is reasonable or rather it is necessary that the sun 
be caught first from behind and the moon from the 
front, for the obstruction begins from that point 
which the intercepting body first assails. The sun 
is assailed from the west by the moon that is striving 
after him, and she is assailed from the east (by the 
earth’s shadow) that is sweeping down as it were in 
the opposite direction. Thirdly, moreover, consider 
the matter of the duration and the magnitude of 
lunar eclipses. If the moon is eclipsed when she is 
high and far from the earth, she is concealed for a 
little time ; but, if this very thing happens to her 
when she is low and near the earth, she is strongly 
curbed and is slow to get out of the shadow, although 
when she is low her exertions of motion are greatest 
and when she is high they are least. The reason for 
the difference lies in the shadow, which being broadest 
at the base, as cones are, and gradually contracting 
terminates at the vertex in a sharp and fine tip. Con- 
sequently the moon, if she has met the shadow when 


(p. 210. 6-19 [Ziegier]), 117 (p. 212. 1-12) on the lunar 
eclipse; ii. 5. 113-114 (p. 204. 27 ff.) on the solar eclipse ; 
Geminus, xii. 5-13 (pp. 138-140 [ Manitius]) on the eastward 
motion of sun and moon. 


127 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ / err? 2 A \ ~ \ 
(933) λαμβάνεται κύκλοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ διαπερᾷ τὸ 
ὁ βύθιον καὶ σκοτωδέστατον ἄνω δ᾽ οἷον ἐν τενάγει 
διὰ λεπτότητα τοῦ σκιεροῦ χρανθεῖσα ταχέως ἀπαλ- 
/ 
λάττεται. παρίημι δ᾽ ὅσα χωρὶς ἰδίᾳ πρὸς τὰς 
, 1 \ , νΥ Up τ). sila 
φάσεις" Kat διαφορήσεις ἐλέχθη (καὶ yap ἐκεῖναι 
μέχρι γε τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου προσίενται τὴν αἰτίαν), 
5 3 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπανάγω πρὸς τὸν ὑποκείμενον λόγον ἀρχὴν 
Uj ~ ~ 
ἔχοντα τὴν αἴσθησιν. ὁρῶμεν yap ὅτι πῦρ ἐκ τόπου 
A , \ , A v.29 
σκιεροῦ διαφαίνεται καὶ διαλάμπει μᾶλλον εἴτε 
/ ~ 
παχύτητι" τοῦ σκοτώδους ἀέρος, οὐ δεχομένου τὰς 
3 
ἀπορρεύσεις" καὶ διαχύσεις ἀλλὰ συνέχοντος ἐν 
ταὐτῷ τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ σφίγγοντος, εἴτε τῆς αἰσθή- 
σεως τοῦτο πάθος ἐστίν, ὡς τὰ θερμὰ παρὰ τὰ 
1 W. L. Bevan; βάσεις -E, B. 
2 Leonicus ; em -Εἰ, B. 


3 Basiliensis ; ταχύτητι -E ; ταχυτῆτι -B. 
4 Τὴ; ἀπορεύσεις -B. 





2 Of. De Communibus Notitiis, 1080 B: αὐταὶ yap δήπουθεν 
ai TOV κωνικῶν τμημάτων ἐπιφάνειαι κύκλοι εἰσίν. 

ὃ Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 119 (pp. 214. 13-216. 8 [Ziegler]) ; 
for the observation that the planets appear to move most 
swiftly when they are nearest to the earth and most slowly 
when they are farthest away cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 112-114 
(pp. 202. 26-206. 27), and Theon of Smyrna, p. 135. 6-11 and 
p. 157. 2-12 (Hiller). Plutarch’s language, however, implies 
that the moon makes a conscious exertion to accelerate her 
motion when she is near the earth, and in the myth at 944 a 
infra it is stated that she increases her speed in order to 
escape the shadow of the earth. Kepler in note 51 to his 
translation declares that, contrary to what Lucius here says, 
perigee eclipses even when central are briefer than apogee 
eclipses ; and Prickard (Plutarch on the Face of the Moon 
[1911], p. 11) says that “ ceteris paribus an eclipse of a distant 
moon should be longer by about one fifteenth.” Prof. 
Neugebauer informs me that, using the Ptolemaic figures for 
the apparent diameter of the moon and of the earth’s shadow 


128 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 933 


she is low, is involved by it in its largest circles 7 and 
traverses its deep and darkest part ; but above as it 
were in shallow water by reason of the fineness of the 
shadow she is just grazed and quickly gets clean 
away.” I pass over all that was said besides with 
particular reference to the phases and variations,°¢ 
for these too, in so far as is possible,’ admit the cause 
alleged ; and instead 1 revert to the argument before 
us ὁ which has its basis in the evidence of the senses. 
We see that from a shadowy place fire glows and 
shines forth more intensely,’ whether because the 
dark air being dense does not admit its efluences and 
diffusions but confines and concentrates the substance 
in a single place or because this is an affection of our 
senses that as hot things appear to be hotter in com- 


and the classical figures given by Geminus for the velocity, 
the maximum totality in apogee should be 4; 3, 232 and 
in perigee 3-;.20, OB. 

¢ Probably a reference to such matters as are discussed by 
Geminus, ix (pp. 124-130 [Manitius]). With τὰς φάσεις καὶ 
διαφορήσεις cf. “ἡ species diversitatesque Lunae,’’ Martianus 
Capella, viii. 871 (p. 459. 15-16 [Dick]). 

4 It is impossible to give an exhaustive and accurately 
scientific explanation of physical phenomena, for they are 
involved in the indeterminateness of matter. Cf. Aristotle, 
Anal. Post. 87 a 31-37 and Metaphysics, 995 a 14-17, 1078 
a 9-13 (cf. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, ii. 2, p. 166, 
n. 3); and for Plato’s more extreme attitude cf. especially 
Timaeus, 29 B-c, Philebus, 56 and 59. Plutarch appears to 
have Philebus, 56 c in mind at Quaest. Conviv. 744 E-F, where 
he makes astronomy “ attendant upon ”’ geometry, as he has 
Philebus, 66 a-8 in mind at 720 c (ef. R. M. Jones, Class. 
Phil. vii [1912], pp. 76 f.). For the notion of the necessary 
lack of accuracy of the “ physical sciences ”’ cf. further Plat. 
Quaest. 1001 & ff. and Quaest. Conviv. 699 B. 

4 Cf. note a on 932 p supra. 

7 Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 99 (p. 180. 11-13 [Ziegler]) and 
ii. 6. 120-121 (p. 218. 2-3). 

VOL. ΧΠἼΠ F 129 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(933) ψυχρὰ θερμότερα Kal Tas ἡδονὰς παρὰ τοὺς πόνους 
/ “ \ \ ’ A \ 
σφοδροτέρας οὕτω τὰ λαμπρὰ φαίνεσθαι παρὰ τὰ 
σκοτεινὰ φανερά, τοῖς διαφόροις πάθεσιν ἀντεπι- 
/ \ / ” \ / 
Ὁ τείνοντα τὴν φαντασίαν. ἔοικε δὲ πιθανώτερον 
εἶναι τὸ πρότερον. ἐν γὰρ ἡλίῳ πᾶσα πυρὸς φύσις 
> / \ \ > / > \ ~ wv 
οὐ μόνον τὸ λαμπρὸν ἀπόλλυσιν ἀλλὰ τῷ εἴκειν 
/ / \ > / / \ « 
γίγνεται δύσεργος καὶ ἀμβλυτέρα- σκίδνησι γὰρ ἡ 
θερμότης καὶ διαχεῖ" τὴν δύναμιν. εἴπερ οὖν ἡ 
/ \ ” ~ \ > ~ ΝΜ 
σελήνη πυρὸς εἴληχε βληχροῦ καὶ ἀδρανοῦς ἄστρον 
> / “ > \ / OA Ων 
οὖσα θολερώτερον, ὥσπερ αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐδὲν ὧν 
πάσχουσα φαίνεται νῦν ἀλλὰ τἀναντία πάντα πά- 
~ / 
axe αὐτὴν προσῆκόν ἐστι, φαίνεσθαι μὲν ὅτε κρύ- 
E πτεται κρύπτεσθαι δ᾽ ὁπηνίκα φαίνεται, τουτέστι 
κρύπτεσθαι μὲν τὸν ἄλλον χρόνον ὑπὸ τοῦ περι- 
ἔχοντος αἰθέρος ἀμαυρουμένην ἐκλάμπειν δὲ καὶ 
/ ~ 3 “ ~ \ / \ 
γίγνεσθαι καταφανῆ dv ἕξ μηνῶν καὶ πάλιν διὰ 
πέντε τῇ σκιᾷ τῆς γῆς ὑποδυομένην. αἱ γὰρ πέντε 
καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ τετρακόσιαι περίοδοι τῶν ἐκ- 
λειπτικῶν πανσελήνων τὰς τέσσαρας καὶ τετρα- 
/ ¢ / ” \ > ees / 
κοσίας ἑξαμήνους ἔχουσι τὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας πενταμήνους. 
ἔδει τοίνυν διὰ τοσούτων χρόνων φαίνεσθαι τὴν 
σελήνην ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ λαμπρυνομένην, ἡ δ᾽ ἐν {τῇ 
ARE \ > , «ον \ A > 
σκιᾷ)" μὲν ἐκλείπει καὶ ἀπόλλυσι τὸ φῶς avadap- 
1 Bernardakis (cf. 939 c 2 infra); διαχέει -E, B. 


2 Wyttenbach after Turnebus and Vulcobius; vac. 5-E, 
4-B ; (adrH) (?)-H. Ὁ. 


« Cf. Quomodo Adul. ab Amico Internose. 57 c, De Hero- 
doti Malignitate, 863 kr. 


130 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 933 


parison with cold and pleasures more intense in 
comparison with pains so bright things appear con- 
spicuous when compared with dark, their appearance 
being intensified by contrast to the different im- 
pressions.” The former explanation seems to be the 
more plausible, for in sunlight fire of every kind not 
only loses its brilliance but by giving way becomes in- 
effective and less keen, the reason being that the heat 
of the sun disperses and dissipates its potency.’ If, 
then, as the Stoics themselves assert,° the moon, 
being a rather turbid star, has a faint and feeble fire 
of her own, she ought to have none of the things 
happen to her that now obviously do but the very 
opposite ; she ought to be revealed when she is 
hidden and hidden whenever she is now revealed, 
that is hidden all the rest of the time when she is 
bedimmed by the cireumambient ether ὦ but shining 
forth and becoming brilliantly clear at intervals of 
six months or again at intervals of five when she sinks 
under the shadow of the earth, since of 465 ecliptic 
full moons 404 occur in cycles of six months and the 
rest in cycles of five months.’ It ought to have been 
at such intervals of time then that the moon is re- 
vealed resplendent in the shadow, whereas in (the 
shadow) she is eclipsed and loses her light but regains 


» Cf. Aristotle, De Caelo, 305 a 9-13; [Alexander], De 
Anima Libri Mantissa, p. 128. 2-7 (Bruns), and the explana- 
tion of the moon’s phases ascribed to Antiphon in De Placitis, 
891 p= Aétius, ii. 28. 4 (Dox. Graeci, p. 358). 

¢ See 928 pb supra with note d there and 935 B infra. 
Reference to the present passage is omitted in S.V.F. 

“ αἰθήρ is here used in the Stoic sense as in 922 B and 928 
c-D supra. 

¢ For this period of 465 ecliptic full moons cf. Class. Phil. 
xlvi (1951), p. 145. 

131 


(933) 


F 


934 ἐ 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


βάνει δ᾽ αὖθις ὃ ὅταν ἐκφύγῃ τὴν σκιὰν καὶ φαίνεταί 
γε πολλάκις ἡμέρας ὡς πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ πύρινον 
οὖσα σῶμα καὶ ἀστεροειδές.᾽ 

21. Εἰπόντος δὲ τοῦτο τοῦ Λευκίου, συνεξέδρα- 
μον ἅμα πως τῷ (λέγειν)" 6 τε Φαρνάκης καὶ ὁ 
᾿Απολλωνίδης. εἶτα τοῦ ᾿Απολλωνίδου παρέντος" 
ὁ Φαρνάκης εἶπεν ὅτι τοῦτο καὶ μάλιστα τὴν σε- 
λήνην δείκνυσιν ἄστρον ἢ πῦρ οὖσαν: οὐ γάρ ἐστι 
παντελῶς ἄδηλος ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν ἀλλὰ διαφαίνει 

\ / > / \ \ σ΄ ” / Ψ 
τινὰ χρόαν ἀνθρακώδη καὶ βλοσυρὰν ἥτις ἴδιός ἐστιν 
αὐτῆς. ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Απολλωνίδης ἐνέστη περὶ τῆς σκιᾶς" 
ἀεὶ γὰρ οὕτως ὀνομάζειν τοὺς" μαθηματικοὺς τὸν 
ἀλαμπῆ τόπον σκιάν' τε μὴ δέχεσθαι τὸν οὐρανόν. 
ἐγὼ dé | τοῦτο μὲν᾽ ᾿ ἔφην © πρὸς τοὔνομα μᾶλλον 
ἐριστικῶς ἢ πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα φυσικῶς καὶ μαθη- 
ματικῶς ἐνισταμένου"" τὸν γὰρ ἀντιφραττόμενον 
ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς τόπον εἰ μὴ σκιάν τις ἐθέλοι καλεῖν 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀφεγγὲς χωρίον, ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν 
σελήνην γενομένην (ἐπισκοτεῖσθαι τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ 
\ / 6 \ “ 2) ” {{ "“ / 

φωτὸς atepopevnv.)»® καὶ ὅλως ᾿ ἔφην “ εὔηθές 
ἐστιν ἐκεῖ μὴ φάναι τῆς γῆς ἐξικνεῖσθαι τὴν σκιὰν 

1 H.C.; vac. 6-E, 5-B. 

2 Wyttenbach after Xylander’s version ; παρόντος -E, B. 

3 οὕτως vac. 2 ὀναμάζειν τοὺς -Εἰὶ ; οὕτως ὀνομάζειν vac. 5 
τοὺς -B; lacuna suppressed by Kepler and Wyttenbach. 

4 Aldine, Basiliensis ; τόπον vac. 4-E, 6-B σκιάν (the lacuna 


in E is immediately under that after οὕτως in the line above). 
5 Wyttenbach after Xylander’s version ; ἐνισταμένους -E, 


‘6 H.C. (cf. Cleomedes, p. 192. 21-22 [Ziegler]); vac. 38-E, 
39-B. 
* For this argument cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (p. 182. 10-16 
[Ziegler]). 
=8S.V.F. ii, frag. 672. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 9. 42 
132 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 933-934 


it again as soon as she escapes the shadow ® and is 
revealed often even by day, which implies that she 
is anything but a fiery and star-like body.”’ 

21. When Lucius said this, almost while <he was 
speaking) Pharnaces and Apollonides sprang forth 
together. Then, Apollonides having yielded, Phar- 
naces said that this very point above all proves the 
moon to be a star or fire, since she is not entirely 
invisible in her eclipses but displays a colour smoulder- 
ing and grim which is peculiar to her.’ Apollonides 
raised an objection concerning the ᾿᾿ shadow ” on the 
ground that scientists always give this name to the 
region that is without light and the heaven does not 
admit shadow.° “ This,” I said, “is the objection 
of one who speaks captiously to the name rather than 
like a natural scientist and mathematician to the 
fact. If one refuses to call the region screened by 
the earth © shadow ’ and insists upon calling it ἡ light- 
less space,’ nevertheless when the moon gets into it 
she must (be obscured since she is deprived of the 
solar light). Speaking generally too, it is silly,” I 
said, “ to deny that the shadow of the earth reaches 


(ὁ deficiens et in defectu tamen conspicua ’’); Olympiodorus, 
In Meteor. p. 67. 36-37 ; Philoponus, In Meteor. pp. 30. 37— 
31. 1 and p. 106. 9-13. The moon is seldom invisible to the 
naked eye even in total eclipses (cf. Dyson and Woolley, 
Eclipses of the Sun and Moon, p. 30; C. A. Young, Manual 
of Astronomy [1902], § 287; Boll, s.v. “* Finsternisse,” R.E. 
vi. 2344); and the apparent colour of the moon in total 
eclipse was as late as the 16th century adduced as evidence 
that the moon had light of its own, a notion entertained as 
possible even by W. Herschel (cf. Pixis, Kepler als Geograph, 
pp:..132-133). 

¢ For a Stoic this follows from the definition of οὐρανός as 
ἔσχατον αἰθέρος and πύρινον (cf. S.V.F. i, p. 33, frags. 115 and 
116; S.V.F. ii, frag. 580 [p. 180. 10-12]). 


133 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(934) (ὁπόθεν Kat)’ ἡ σκιὰ τῆς σελήνης ἐπιπίπτουσα TH 
» \ , 2 \ \ = ” cei 
ὄψει καὶ (dunKovaa)* πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἔκλειψιν ἡλίου 

a3 \ \ , 4 ΄, , \ \ 
Β ποιεῖ. πρὸς σὲ δέ, ὦ Φαρνάκη, τρέψομαι. τὸ yap 
ἀνθρακῶδες ἐκεῖνο καὶ διακαὲς χρῶμα τῆς σελήνης 
ὃ φὴς ἴδιον αὐτῆς εἶναι σώματός ἐστι πυκνότητα 
\ 7, ” γῶν \ γΩ 7 A > a 
καὶ βάθος ἔχοντος: οὐδὲν yap ἐθέλει τοῖς ἀραιοῖς 

ε / \ 950. " > / »Q> » 
ὑπόλειμμα φλογὸς οὐδ᾽ ἴχνος ἐμμένειν οὐδ᾽ ἔστιν 
ἀνθρακογένεσις οὗ μὴ στερέμνιον σῶμα δεξάμενον 
διὰ βάθους τὴν πύρωσιν καὶ σῷζον, ὥς που καὶ 


Ὅμηρος εἴρηκεν 


» \ ’ \ \ »Μ 5 / 4 εἶ 
αυταὰαρ E€7TTEL πυρος ἄνθος ΑἸΤΕΙΤΤΑΤΟ TAVOATO δὲ 
φλὸξ 


ἀνθρακιὴν στορέσας. . 


e \ Μ ” ᾿] ~ > \ ~ 
ὁ yap ἀνθραξ ἔοικεν οὐ πῦρ ἀλλὰ σῶμα πεπυρω- 
μένον εἶναι καὶ πεπονθὸς ὑπὸ πυρός, στερεῷ καὶ 
ῥίζαν ἔχοντι προσμένοντος ὄγκῳ καὶ προσδιατρίβον- 
C τος, at δὲ φλόγες ἀραιᾶς εἰσιν ἔξαψις καὶ ῥεύματα 
΄ δε Ψ \ > > / > / 
τροφῆς Kat ὕλης, ταχὺ du ἀσθένειαν ἀναλυομένης, 
ὥστ᾽ οὐδὲν ἂν ὑπῆρχε τοῦ" γεώδη καὶ πυκνὴν εἶναι 
τὴν σελήνην ἕτερον οὕτως ἐναργὲς τεκμήριον εἴπερ 
Purser (implied by Amyot’s version) ; vac. 10- Εἰ, 9-B. 
Turnebus ; vac. 6-E, 9-B. 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ποιεῖν -E, B. 
Xylander ; ἀρχαίοις -E, B. 
5 Wyttenbach ; οὐ μὴν -E, B (for the same scribal error cf. 


Aristotle, Politics, 1301 b 27). 6 Xylander ; σόλων -K, B. 
7 E ; στορέσασα -B. 8 EK; omitted by B. 


» On” μὰ 


«ΟἹ 922 κ-βὶ supra. With ἀνθρακογένεσις, “ἡ incandes- 
cence,” Raingeard compares ἀνθρακοποιΐα in Gregory of 
Nyssa, 111. 937 a. 

134 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 934 


that point (from which on its part) the shadow of 
the moon by impinging upon the sight and (extend- 
ing) to the earth produces an eclipse of the sun. 
Now I shall turn to you, Pharnaces. That smoulder- 
ing and glowing colour of the moon which you say 
is peculiar to her is characteristic of a body that is 
compact and a solid, for no remnant or trace of flame 
will remain in tenuous things nor is incandescence 
possible unless there is a hard body that has been 
ignited through and through and sustains the igni- 
tion. So Homer too has somewhere said : 


But when fire’s bloom had flown and flame had ceased 
He smoothed the embers. . . .2 


The reason probably is that what is igneous ¢ is not 
fire but body that has been ignited and subjected 
to the action of fire, which adheres to a solid and 
stable mass and continues to occupy itself with it, 
whereas flames are the kindling and flux of tenuous 
nourishment or matter which because of its feeble- 
ness is swiftly dissolved. Consequently there would 
be no other proof of the moon’s earthy and compact 
nature so manifest as the smouldering colour, if it 


ὃ Tliad, ix. 212-213 in our texts read : 
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ πῦρ ἐκάη Kal φλὸξ ἐμαράνθη, 
ἀνθρακιὴν στορέσας ὀβελοὺς ἐφύπερθε τάνυσσε, 
but the first line as Plutarch gives it was known to Aristarchus, 
who rejected it (cf. Ludwich, Aristarchs Homerische Text- 
kritik, i, Ὁ. 302; Eustathius, 4d Iliadem, 748. 41; Scholia 
Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ed. Dindorf, i, p. 312). 
¢ Purser has pointed out (Hermathena, xvi [1911], p. 316) 
that avOpaé may mean all degrees of burning coal from com- 
plete incandescence to ashes and that fire’s need of solid 
matter to work upon was often used as an argument against 
the Stoic conflagration of the world: cf. Philo, De Aeter- 
nitate Mundi, §§ 86-88 (vi, pp. 99. 14-100. 10 [Cohn-Reiter]). 


135 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(934) αὐτῆς ἴδιον ἦν ὡς χρῶμα τὸ ἀνθρακῶδες. ἀλλ’ 
οὐκ ἔστιν, ὦ φίλε Φαρνάκη: πολλὰς yap* ἐκλεί- 
,ὔ ~ 
movoa χρόας apeiBe® καὶ διαιροῦσιν αὐτὰς οὕτως 
ε 
οὗ μαθηματικοὶ κατὰ χρόνον καὶ ὥραν ἀφορίζοντες. 
a“ > > « ,ὔ » / ,ὔ - ~ 
av ad ἑσπέρας ἐκλείπῃ φαίνεται μέλαινα δεινῶς 
ἄχρι τρίτης ὥρας καὶ ἡμισείας: ἂν δὲ μέση, τοῦτο 
δὴ τὸ ἐπιφοινίσσον ἵησι [καὶ πῦρ]; καὶ πυρωπόν᾽" 
» \ > «ς / σ \ ες ͵ὔ > / \ 
ἀπὸ δ᾽ ἑβδόμης ὥρας Kal ἡμισείας ἀνίσταται TO 
327 \ , yO 5 \ “ 7, 8 ΄ 
D ἐρύθημα: καὶ τέλος ἤδη" πρὸς ἕω λαμβάνει" χρόαν 
κυανοειδῇ καὶ χαροπὴν ἀφ᾽ ἧς δὴ καὶ μάλιστα 
“γλαυκῶπιν αὐτὴν οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς 
ἀνακαλοῦνται. τοσαύτας οὖν χρόας ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τὴν 
σελήνην λαμβάνουσαν ὁρῶντες οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐπὶ 
μόνον καταφέρονται τὸ ἀνθρακῶδες 6 μάλιστα 
/ v > / » ~ > \ ΄΄ 
φήσαι τις ἂν ἀλλότριον αὐτῆς εἶναι καὶ μᾶλλον 
ὑπόμιγμα καὶ λεῖμμα τοῦ φωτὸς διὰ τῆς σκιᾶς 


1 Turnebus : τὰς -E, B. 
2 Diibner (implied by Xylander’s and Amyot’s versions) ; 
ἐκλειπούσας -E, B. 
aw yttenbach (implied by. Amyot’s version) ; ἀμείβειν -E, 
4 Excised by Emperius. 
5B ; ἤδη -E. § Stephanus (1624) ; λαμβάνειν -E, B. 


« Cf. Aemilius Paulus, 17 (264 8), Nicias, 23 (538 ©) and 
for a description and explanation of the phenomenon cf. Sir 
John Herschel, Outlines of Astronomy, §§ 421-424, and 
JoeB. Schmidt, Der Mond (Leipzig, 1836), p. 35. Astrology 
assigned special significance to the various colours of the 
moon in total eclipse: ef. Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum 
Graecorum, vii (Brussels, 1908), p. 131. 6 ff.; Ptolemy, 
Apotelesmatica, ii. 14. 4-5 (pp. 101-102 [Boll-Boer]) and ii. 
10. 1-2 (pp. 91-92); and Boll in R.E. vi. 2350 assumes that 
by μαθηματικοίὶ in the present passage Plutarch means “ astro- 
logers ’’ (but see 937 F infra). Neither there nor in his article, 
‘* Antike Beobachtungen farbiger Sterne,”’ does Boll mention 


136 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 934 


really were her own. But it is not so, my dear Phar- 
naces, for as she is eclipsed she exhibits many changes 
of colour which scientists have distinguished as 
follows, delimiting them according to time or hour.“ 
If the eclipse occurs between eventide and half after 
the third hour, she appears terribly black; if at 
midnight, then she gives off this reddish and fiery 
colour; from half after the seventh hour a blush 
arises ὃ on her face; and finally, if she is eclipsed 
when dawn is already near, she takes on a bluish 
or azure © hue, from which especially it is that the 
poets and Empedocles give her the epithet ἡ bright- 
eyed.’% Now, when one sees the moon take on so 
many hues in the shadow, it is a mistake to settle 
upon the smouldering colour alone, the very one that 
might especially be called alien to her and rather an 
admixture or remnant of the light shining round 
about through the shadow, while the black or earthy 


any classification of the colours according to the time of the 
eclipse, however, nor does Gundel, s.v. “ Mond” in RE. 
xvi. 1. 101-102. Geminus’s calendar for the different phases 
of the moon (ix. 14-15 [pp. 128-130, Manitius]) has no con- 
nection with this matter and so is not, as Adler supposes 
(Diss. Phil. Vind. x, p. 157), an indication that Plutarch’s 
source in the present passage was Posidonius. 

> This, pace Prickard, must be the meaning of ἀνίσταται 
here ; cf. ἀνιστάμενος in Pompey, 34 (637 Ὁ) and ἀναστάντος in 
Appian, B.C. i. 56 (ii, p. 61. 7 [Mendelssohn-Viereck]). 

¢ In Marius, 11 (411 Ὁ) χαροπότης is used of the eye-colour 
of the Teutons and Cimbrians, and in De Iside, 352 τ the 
colour of the flax-flower is said to resemble τῇ περιεχούσῃ τὸν 
κόσμον αἰθερίῳ χαροπότητι. 

@ See 929 p supra and note ὁ there; but Diels (Hermes, 
xv [1880], p. 176) because of ἀνακαλοῦνται thought that 
Plutarch must here have had in mind a verse of Empedocles 
that ended with the invocation, γλαυκῶπι Σελήνη. Cf. also 
Euripides, frag. 1009 (Nauck?). 


137 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(934) περιλάμποντος ἴδιον δὲ TO μέλαν Kal γεῶδες. ὅπου 
δὲ πορφυρίσιν ἐνταῦθα καὶ φοινικίσι λίμναις τε καὶ 
ποταμοῖς δεχομένοις ἥλιον ἐπίσκια χωρία γειτ- 
νιῶντα συγχρώζεται καὶ περιλάμπεται διὰ τὰς 
ἀνακλάσεις ἀποδιδόντα πολλοὺς καὶ διαφόρους 
ἀπαυγασμούς, τί θαυμαστὸν εἰ ῥεῦμα πολὺ σκιᾶς 
ἐμβάλλον ὥσπερ εἰς πέλαγος οὐράνιον οὐ σταθεροῦ 
φωτὸς οὐδ᾽ ἠρεμοῦντος ἀλλὰ μυρίοις ἄστροις περι- 
ελαυνομένου' μίξεις τε παντοδαπὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς 
λαμβάνοντος ἄλλην ἄλλοτε χρόαν ἐκματτόμενον ἀπὸ 
τῆς σελήνης. ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἀποδίδωσιν; ἄστρον μὲν γὰρ 
ἢ πῦρ οὐκ ἂν ἐν σκιᾷ διαφανείη μέλαν 7 ἢ γλαυκὸν 
ἢ κυανοειδές, ὄρεσι δὲ καὶ πεδίοις καὶ θαλάσσαις 
F πολλαὶ μὲν ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου μορφαὶ χρωμάτων ἐπιτρέ- 
χουσι, καὶ σκιαῖς καὶ ὁμίχλαις οἵας φαρμάκοις 
γραφικοῖς μιγνύμενον ἐπάγει βαφὰς τὸ λαμπρόν. 
ὧν τὰ μὲν τῆς θαλάττης ἐπικεχείρηκεν ἃ ἁμωσγέπως 
ἐξονομάζειν ᾿ Ὅμηρος * ἰοειδέα ᾿ καλῶν. καὶ ‘ οἴνοπα 
πόντον αὖθις δὲ ‘ ΠΌΡΡΩ ΣΝ κῦμα᾽ ᾿γλαυκήν᾽ 
Tt ἄλλως ‘ θάλασσαν κα ᾿ λευκὴν γαλήνην ᾿ τὰς 
δὲ περὶ τὴν γῆν raat τῶν ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλως ἐπι- 
αινομένων χρωμάτων παρῆκεν ὡς ἀπείρους τὸ 
πλῆθος οὔσας. τὴν δὲ σελήνην οὐκ εἰκὸς ὥσπερ" 
τὴν θάλασσαν μίαν ἔχειν ἐπιφάνειαν ἀλλ᾽ ἐοικέναι 


μάλιστα τῇ γῇ τὴν φύσιν ἣν ἐμυθολόγει Σωκράτης 


ΗΕ 


- 


1 E; ἐλαυνομένου -B. 
2 E; omitted in B. 


α Kepler remarks on this sentence (note 56): ‘‘ Ecce 
Plutarchum meae sententiae proxime accedentem, nisi quod 
non dicit, a quo lucente sit illud lumen, num ab aethere, an 
a Sole ipso, per refractionem ejus radiorum.”’ 

» Cf. the similar but more elaborate description in De 


138 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 934 


colour should be called her own.” Since here on earth 
places near lakes and rivers open to the sun take on 
the colour and brilliance of the purple and red awnings 
that shade them, by reason of the reflections giving 
off many various effulgences, what wonder if a great 
flood of shade debouching as it were into a heavenly 
sea of light, not calm or at rest but undergoing all 
sorts of combinations and alterations as it is churned 
about by countless stars, takes from the moon at 
different times the stain of different hues and pre- 
sents them to our sight?’ A star or fire could 
not in shadow shine out black or glaucous or bluish ; 
but over mountains, plains, and sea flit many kinds 
of colours from the sun, and blended with the shadows 
and mists his brilliance ὁ induces such tints as bril- 
liance does when blended with a painter’s pigments. 
Those of the sea Homer has endeavoured somehow 
or other to designate, using the terms ᾿ violet 4 and 
‘ wine-dark deep ’° and again ‘ purple swell ’’ and 
elsewhere ‘ glaucous sea’ 5 and ‘ white calm ᾿ ἢ ; but 
he passed over as being an endless multitude the 
variations of the colours that appear differently at 
different times about the land. It is likely, however, 
that the moon has not a single plane surface like the 
sea but closely resembles in constitution the earth 
that the ancient Socrates made the subject of a myth,’ 


Genio Socratis, 590 c ff., where the stars are islands moving in 
a celestial sea, and also De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 563 §-Fr. 

¢ For λαμπρόν. “ brilliance,” as a colour cf. Plato, Timaeus, 
8 a; Theophrastus calls it τὸ πυρῶδες λευκόν (De Sensibus, 
86 [ Dow. Graeci, p. 525. 23)). @ e.g. Iliad, xi. 298. 

¢ e.g. Iliad, i. 350. t e.g. Iliad, i. 481-482. 

9 Only in Jliad, xvi. 34 (cf. Scholia Graeca in Homeri 
Iliadem, ed. Diidorf, ii, p. 92). 

n Odyssey, x. 94. ? Plato, Phaedo, 110 B ff. 


6 
§ 


139 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


935 ὁ παλαιὸς εἴτε δὴ ταύτην αἰνιττόμενος εἴτε δὴ 
ἄλλην τινὰ διηγούμενος" οὐ γὰρ ἄπιστον οὐδὲ θαυ- 
μαστὸν εἰ μηδὲν ἔχουσα διεφθορὸς (ἐν) ἑαυτῇ μηδ᾽ 
ἰλυῶδες ἀλλὰ φῶς τε καρπουμένη καθαρὸν ἐξ οὐ- 
ρανοῦ καὶ θερμότητος οὐ διακαοῦς οὐδὲ μανικοῦ 

\ > \ “Ὁ \ > ~ \ \ / 
πυρὸς ἀλλὰ νοτεροῦ" καὶ ἀβλαβοῦς Kat κατὰ φύσιν 
ἔχοντος οὖσα πλήρης κάλλη τε θαυμαστὰ κέκτηται 
τόπων ὄρη τε φλογοειδῆ καὶ ζώνας ἁλουργοὺς" 
ἔχει, χρυσόν τε καὶ ἄργυρον οὐκ ἐν βάθει διεσπαρ- 

/ > \ \ A / > ~ ἢ “Ἃ 
μένον ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοῖς πεδίοις ἐξανθοῦντα πολὺν ἢ 
πρὸς ὕψεσι λείοις περιφαινόμενον. εἰ δὲ τούτων 

Β ὄψις ἀφικνεῖται διὰ τῆς σκιᾶς ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλη πρὸς 
ἡμᾶς ἐξαλλαγῇ καὶ διαφορᾷ τινι τοῦ περιέχοντος, 
τό γε μὴν τίμιον οὐκ ἀπόλλυσι τῆς δόξης οὐδὲ τὸ 
θεῖον ἡ σελήνη, (γ)ῆ τις" (ζὀλυμπία καὶ" ἱερὰ πρὸς 
ἀνθρώπων νομιζομένη μᾶλλον ἢ ἢ πῦρ θολερὸν ὥ ὥσπερ 
οἱ Στωικοὶ λέγουσι καὶ τρυγῶδες. πῦρ μέν γε 
παρὰ Μήδοις καὶ ᾿Ασσυρίοις βαρβαρικὰς ἔχει 
τιμάς, ot φόβῳ τὰ βλάπτοντα θεραπεύουσι πρὸ τῶν 
σεμνῶν ἀφοσιούμενοι, τὸ δὲ γῆς ὄνομα παντί που 
φίλον “ἕλληνι καὶ τίμιον καὶ πατρῷον ἡμῖν ὥσπερ 
Ο ἄλλον τινὰ θεὸν" σέβεσθαι. πολλοῦ δὲ δέομεν᾽" 

1 Emperius ; omitted without lacuna - Εἰ, B. 

2 voepod ὃ -H. C. 3 E; ἁλουργὰς -B. 

4 Bernardakis (cf. Brutus, 42 [1004 a]; Pompey, 19 [628 
Ὁ]: Fabius Max. 5 [176 £]) ; περιφερόμενον -E, 

5 Emperius ; ἥτις -E, B. 

6. Bernardakis (cf. 935 c infra and De Defectu Oraculorum, 
416 ©); vac. 9-E, 13-B. ? Turnebus ; ἢ μᾶλλον -E, B. 

8 Β : θεῶν -E. ® Basiliensis ; δεῖ o¢ μὲν - ὸ ; δεῖ of μὲν -B. 


α “This one,’ ταύτην, means the earth, not the moon, as 
most translators since Wyttenbach have thought; ‘‘ some 
other,” ἄλλην twa, means “some other earth,’’ which is 
exactly what Lamprias believes the moon to be. So Lamprias 


140 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 935 


whether he really was speaking in riddles about this 
earth or was giving a description of some other.* It 
is in fact not incredible or wonderful that the moon, 
if she has nothing corrupted or slimy (in) her but 
garners pure light from heaven and is filled with 
warmth, which is fire not glowing or raging but 
moist ὃ and harmless and in its natural state, has got 
open regions of marvellous beauty and mountains 
flaming bright and has zones of royal purple with 
gold and silver not scattered in her depths but burst- 
ing forth in abundance on the plains or openly visible 
on the smooth heights.¢ If through the shadow 
there comes to us a glimpse of these, different at 
different times because of some variation and differ- 
ence of the atmosphere, the honourable repute of 
the moon is surely not impaired nor is her divinity 
because she is held by men to be a (celestial and) 
holy earth rather than, as the Stoics say, a fire turbid 
and dreggish.? Fire, to be sure, is given barbaric 
honours among the Medes and Assyrians, who from 
fear by way of propitiation worship the maleficent 
forces rather than the reverend ; but to every Greek, 
of course, the name of earth is dear and honourable, 
and it is our ancestral tradition to revere her like any 
other god. As men we are far from thinking that the 


means that what Socrates said must be considered as a riddle 
if he was really talking about our earth but can be taken as 
straightforward description if he was referring to “‘ some 
other earth,”’ 1.2. the moon. 

ὃ Or, if vorepod is a scribal error for νοεροῦ, “‘ intellectual ”’ ; 
cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 145. 

¢ The details of this description were suggested by Phaedo, 
110 c—111 c, to which Plutarch has referred above. 

Δ See 928 p and 933 bp supra. ‘The present passage is not 
listed in S.V.F. 


141 


(935) 


D 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


»Μ Ἁ ’ὔ ~ εν > / Μ 
ἄνθρωποι τὴν σελήνην, γῆν οὖσαν ὀλυμπίαν, ἄψυχον 
« A ~ a 
ἡγεῖσθαι σῶμα καὶ ἄνουν καὶ ἄμοιρον ὧν θεοῖς 
3 ~ ~ > 
ἀπάρχεσθαι προσήκει νόμῳ τε τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀμοιβὰς 
τίνοντας καὶ κατὰ φύσιν σεβομένους τὸ κρεῖττον 
ἀρετῇ καὶ δυνάμει καὶ τιμιώτερον. ὥστε μηδὲν 
>7 κι P| ee ἢ \ \ 
οἰώμεθα πλημμελεῖν γῆν᾽' αὐτὴν θέμενοι τὸ δὲ 
~ > 
φαινόμενον τουτὶ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ἡ παρ 
ἡμῖν ἔχει γῆ κόλπους τινὰς μεγάλους, οὕτως 
> / > / / / \ 6, 
ἐκείνην ἀνεπτύχθαι βάθεσι μεγάλοις καὶ ῥήξεσιν 
ὕδωρ ἢ ζοφερὸν ἀέρα περιέχουσιν ὧν ἐντὸς οὐ 
- ~ > 
Kabinow οὐδ᾽ ἐπιψαύει τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ἀλλ 
ἐκλείπει καὶ διεσπασμένην ἐνταῦθα τὴν ἀνάκλασιν 
ἀποδίδωσιν. 
a ; ὦ Ὁ 
22. “Ὑπολαβὼν δ᾽ ὁ ᾿Απολλωνίδης “ εἶτ᾽, ὦ πρὸς 
> - ” ” “e ~ / A > a 
αὐτῆς ᾿ ἔφη “ris σελήνης, δυνατὸν εἶναι δοκεῖ 
£. = 1 , > \ 
ὑμῖν ῥηγμάτων τινῶν ἢ φαράγγων εἶναι σκιὰς 
> A 5 ~ ~ \ \ »Μ ἋἋ \ 
κἀκεῖθεν ἀφικνεῖσθαι δεῦρο πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν, ἢ TO 
συμβαῖνον οὐ λογίζεσθε κἀγὼ τουτὶ εἴπω; ἀκού- 
~ / 
οιτε δὴ καίπερ οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες. ἡ μὲν διάμετρος 
~ / / / yA A / 
τῆς σελήνης δυοκαίδεκα δακτύλους ἔχει TO φαινό- 
μενον ἐν τοῖς μέσοις ἀποστήμασι μέγεθος. τῶν 
δὲ μελάνων καὶ σκιερῶν ἕκαστον ἡμιδακτυλίου 
- ~ / - a>! 
φαίνεται μεῖζον ὥστε τῆς διαμέτρου μεῖζον ἢ 
> 
εἰκοστοτέταρτον εἶναι. καὶ μήν, εἰ μόνων ὑπο- 
~ / 
θοίμεθα τὴν περίμετρον τῆς σελήνης τρισμυρίων 
σταδίων μυρίων δὲ τὴν διάμετρον, κατὰ τὸ ὑπο- 
“" / 
κείμενον οὐκ ἔλαττον ἂν εἴη" πεντακοσίων σταδίων 
1 Basiliensis ; τὴν -E, B. 
2 Turnebus ; ἀκούοιτε δὲ -E, B (but B has this phrase after 


καίπερ οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες). 
8 Turnebus ; εἶναι -Εἰ, B. 


142 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 935 


moon, because she is a celestial “ earth, is a body 
without soul and mind and without share in the first- 
fruits that it beseems us to offer to the gods, according 
to custom requiting them for the goods we have 
received and naturally revering what is better and 
more honourable in virtue and power. Consequently 
let us not think it an offence to suppose that she is 
earth and that for this which appears to be her face, 
just as our earth has certain great gulfs, so that earth 
yawns with great depths and clefts which contain 
water or murky air; the interior of these the light 
of the sun does not plumb or even touch, but it fails 
and the reflection which it sends back here is dis- 
continuous.’ ® 

22. Here Apollonides broke in. “ Then by the 
moon herself,” he said, “do you people think it 
possible that any clefts and chasms cast shadows 
which from the moon reach our sight here ; or do 
you not reckon the consequence, and shall I tell you 
what itis? Please listen then, though it is not any- 
thing unknown to you. The diameter of the moon 
measures twelve digits in apparent size at her mean 
distance ©; and each of the black and shadowy spots 
appears greater than half a digit and consequently 
would be greater than one twenty-fourth of her 
diameter. Well then, if we should suppose that the 
circumference of the moon is only thirty thousand 
stades and her diameter ten thousand, each of the 
shadowy spots on her would in accordance with the 

@ See note ὃ on 929 a supra. 

ὃ For this “ discontinuousness ”’ of the reflection cf. 921 c 
supra and especially Quaest. Conviv. 696 s-c. 

¢ Cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 95 (p. 172. 25-27 [Ziegler]) ; on this 
measurement of 12 digits cf. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, 
p- 23, n. 1: 

143 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> ’ ~ ~ ~ Ὁ “ \ ~ 
(935) ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν σκιερῶν ἕκαστον. ὅρα δὴ πρῶτον 
\ > ~ ~ 
av ἢ δυνατὸν τῇ σελήνη τηλικαῦτα βάθη καὶ τηλι- 
7 - 
καύτας εἶναι τραχύτητας ὥστε σκιὰν ποιεῖν τοσ- 
/ ~ > ~ 
avTnV, ἔπειτα πῶς οὖσαι τηλικαῦται TO μέγεθος 
id > ¢ ΄ ᾿] ¢ ~ ” > \ / \ 
ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν οὐχ ορῶνται. κἀγὼ μειδιάσας πρὸς 
» A «ec Dy γ᾽ }}) »Μ .ὦ / ᾿] / 53 ’ὔ 
αὑτον ἔφην “᾿ ὅτι τοιαύτην ἐξεύρηκας ἀπό- 
δειξιν, ὦ 5 oie, δι᾿ ἧς κἀμὲ καὶ σαυτὸν 
> ~ ~ 7 
F ἀποδείξεις τῶν ᾿Αλωαδῶν᾽ ἐκείνων εἶναι μείζονας" 
5 > “ / / ~ ς / > \ Δ, 
οὐκ ἐν ἅπαντι μέντοι χρόνῳ τῆς ἡμέρας ἀλλὰ πρωΐ 
(λ \ / X\3 ” \ \ ¢ ~ “ 
μάλιστα καὶ δείλης, (el)*® οἴει, τὰς σκιὰς ἡμῶν τοῦ 
ς / ~ 5 / \ A ~ 
ἡλίου ποιοῦντος ἡλιβάτους, τὸν καλὸν τοῦτον 
> /, / A e >] / \ 
αἰσθήσει παρέχειν συλλογισμὸν ὡς, εἰ μέγα TO 
/ € / \ / > / 
σκιαζόμενον, ὑπερμέγεθες TO σκιάζον. ἐν Λήμνῳ 
\ » ἣ ¢€ ~ oo AWS ff / \ / 
μὲν οὐδέτερος ἡμῶν εὖ οἶδ᾽ OTL γέγονε, τουτὶ μέντοι 
τὸ θρυλούμενον" ἰαμβεῖον ἀμφότεροι πολλάκις ἀκη- 
1 Diibner : ἀλλωάδων - Εἰ ; ἀλωάδων B. 
5 Τὶ ; μείζονας εἶναι -B. 
3. Emperius: δείλης. οἴει -, B; δείλης, (6s) οἴει -Purser. 
4 Ἡ, C. (cf. Quaest. Conviv. 641 B, De Aud. Poetis, 17 r and 
36 B, De Amic. Multitudine, 94 a, De Communibus Notitiis, 


1078 c, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1050 B) 3 τεθρυλλημένον 
-E ; θρυλλούμενον -B. 


4 Apollonides exaggerates for the sake of his point, for 
500 stades is υἷ5. not 34; of 10,000; but he has guarded him- 
self by saying that each of the spots is more than half a digit 
and so more than τς of the diameter. On the other hand, 
he intends his estimate of the moon’s size to err, if at all, on 
the side of conservatism : ef. “ἡ only thirty thousand stades.”’ 
Such small figures, even as minima, are remarkable, however. 
Cleomedes (ii. 1. 80-81 [pp. 146. 25-148. 3, Ziegler]) gives 


144 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 935 


assumption measure not less than five hundred stades.* 
Consider now in the first place whether it is possible 
for the moon to have depths and corrugations so great 
as to cast such a large shadow ; in the second place 
why, if they are of such great magnitude, we do not 
see them.” Then 1 said to him with a smile : “ Con- 
gratulations for having discovered such a demon- 
stration, Apollonides. It would enable you to prove 
that both you and 1 are taller than the famous sons 
of Aloeus,® not at every time of day to be sure but 
early in the morning particularly and in late after- 
noon, <if), when the sun makes our shadows enor- 
mous, you intend to supply sensation with this lovely 
reasoning that, if the shadow cast is large, what casts 
the shadow is immense. I am well aware that neither 
of us has been in Lemnos; we have both, however, 


40,000 stades as the lunar diameter, basing this upon the 
assumption that the earth is twice as large as the moon and 
has a circumference of 250,000 stades according to the 
measurement of Eratosthenes and a diameter therefore of 
‘“more than 80,000 stades.” Plutarch adopted the same 
figure for the terrestrial diameter (see 925 p supra) but sup- 
posed this and the terrestrial circumference to be three times 
those of the moon (see 923 B supra and note ὦ there), figures 
which should have given him more than 26,000 stades as the 
lunar diameter. According to Hultsch, however, Posidonius 
must have calculated the lunar diameter to be 12,000 stades 
(cf. Abhand. K. Gesell. Wissensch. zu Géttingen, Phil.-Hist. 
Kl., N.F. i, No. 5, p. 38), which by the usual approximation 
would have given 36,000 stades for the lunar circumference ; 
and Apollonides’ minimal estimate may have been based 
upon these figures. For the common “ rough approxima- 
tion ’’ 3-1 as the relation of circumference to diameter cf. 
Archimedes, Arenarius, ii. 3 (Opera Omnia, ii, p. 234. 28-29 
{Heiberg]}). 
> Otus and Ephialtes: cf. De Evxilio, 602 p; Iliad, v. 385- 
387; Odyssey, xi. 305-320 ; Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, i. 7. 4. 
2-4, 
145 


(935) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


KOG [LEV 
"Abws καλύψει' πλευρὰ Anpvias Boos: 


» / Ἁ ¢ \ ~ » ¢ uv / 
ἐπιβάλλει yap ἡ σκιὰ τοῦ ὄρους, ws ἔοικε, χαλκέῳ 
τινὶ βοϊδίῳ, μῆκος ἀποτείνουσα διὰ τῆς θαλάττης 
> » γ 6 / / > > >] \ 
οὐκ ἔλαττον ἑπτακοσίων σταδίων. <add’ od χρὴ 
δήπουθεν ἑπτακοσίων σταδίων)" τὸ κατασκιάζον 
“ > \ \ ολὺν ¢ , ε A 
ὕψος εἶναι διὰ τὴν αἰτίαν ὅτι πολλαπλασίους at τοῦ 
φωτὸς ἀποστάσεις τῶν σωμάτων τὰς σκιὰς ποιοῦσι. 
δεῦρο δὴ θεῶ καὶ τῆς σελήνης ὅτε πάμμηνός ἐστι 
καὶ μάλιστα τὴν ἰδέαν ἔναρθρον τοῦ προσώπου 
βαθύτητι τῆς σκιᾶς ἀποδίδωσι τὸ μέγιστον ἀπ- 
ἔχοντα διάστημα τὸν ἥλιον" ἡ γὰρ ἀπόστασις τοῦ 
φωτὸς αὐτὴ τὴν σκιὰν μεγάλην οὐ τὰ μεγέθη τῶν 
ὑπὲρ τὴν σελήνην ἀνωμαλιῶν πεποίηκε. καὶ μὴν 
οὐδὲ τῶν Op@v* τὰς ὑπεροχὰς ἐῶσι μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν" αἱ 
περιαυγαὶ τοῦ ἡλίου καθορᾶσθαι, τὰ μέντοι βαθέα 
καὶ κοῖλα φαίνεται καὶ σκιώδη πόρρωθεν. οὐδὲν 
Ss a is 
οὖν ἄτοπον εἰ Kal τῆς σελήνης τὴν ἀντίλαμψιν" καὶ 
τὸν ἐπιφωτισμὸν οὐκ ἔστι καθορᾶν ἀκριβῶς αἱ δὲ 


1 EF, B; καλύπτει -Van Herwerden. 

2 Aldine, Basiliensis ; πλευρᾶς Ἔν, lads πλευρὰς -B*. 

° H.C. after Purser’s (od χρὴ δὲ ἑπτακοσίων σταδίων) ; no 
lacuna in E or B; lacuna indicated in Xylander’s version ; 

“(Αἴ non ideo tantam faciemus illam) altitudinem,”’ ete. 
-Kepler. 

4B; ὁρῶν -E. 

5 Stephanus (1624) ; μεθημέραν -E, B. 

6 Apelt ; ἀντίληψιν -E, 


« The verse, which comes from an unidentified tragedy of 
Sophocles, is elsewhere quoted with καλύπτει or σκιάζει and 
with πλευρά or νῶτα (cf. Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag.*, p. 299, 
frag. 708). For the shadow of Athos cast upon Lemnos ef. 


146 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 935-936 


often heard this line that is on everyone's lips : 


Athos will veil the Lemnian heifer’s flank. ¢ 


The point of this apparently is that the shadow of the 
mountain, extending not less than seven hundred 
stades over the sea,? falls upon a little bronze heifer ; 
{but it is not necessary, I presume.) that what casts 
the shadow be (seven hundred stades) high, for the 
reason that shadows are made many times the size 
of the objects that cast them by the remoteness of 
the light from the objects.“ Come then, observe that, 
when the moon is at the full and because of the 
shadow’s depth exhibits most articulately the appear- 
ance of the face, the sun is at his maximum distance 
from her. The reason is that the remoteness of the 
light alone and not the magnitude of the irregularities 
on the surface of the moon has made the shadow 
large. Besides, even in the case of mountains the 
dazzling beams of the sun prevent their crags from 
being discerned in broad daylight, although their 
depths and hollows and shadowy parts are visible 
from afar. So it is not at all strange that in the case 
of the moon too it is not possible to discern accurately 
the reflection and illumination, whereas the juxta- 


Pliny, Nat. Hist. iv. 12 (23)..73; Apollonius Rhodius, i. 
601-604; Proclus, In Timaeum, 56 B (i, p. 181. 12 ff. [Diehl]). 
ὃ Proclus (loc. cit.) says that this is the distance of Lemnos 
from Athos, Plutarch rather that it is the length of the shadow 
cast by the mountain. According to Eustathius (4d Jliadem, 
980. 45 ff.), Athos is 300 stades distant from Lemnos, accord- 
ing to Pliny (loc. cit.) 87 Roman miles (unless this is a scribal 
error for XXX XVII). The actual distance is said to be about 
50 miles ; and Athos, which is 6350 feet high, could cast a 
shadow for almost 100 miles over open sea. 
¢ In this Plutarch is guilty either of an error or of an 
intentional sophism ; cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 145. 
147 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(936) τῶν σκιερῶν παραθέσεις mapa τὰ λαμπρὰ τῇ δια- 
φορᾷ τὴν ὄψιν οὐ λανθάνουσιν. 
23. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον ᾿᾿ ἔφην “ ἐλέγχειν δοκεῖ 
~ iv 4 . 
τὴν λεγομένην ἀνάκλασιν ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης, ὅτι τοὺς 
A A ~ ’ὔ 
ἐν ταῖς ἀνακλωμέναις αὐγαῖς ἑστῶτας οὐ μόνον 
7 \ ti « ~ 5 \ \ A 
συμβαίνει τὸ φωτιζόμενον ὁρᾶν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ φω- 
τίζον. ὅταν γὰρ αὐγῆς ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος πρὸς τοῖχον 
ε / » 5 , ~ ~ / \ 
C ἁλλομένης ὄψις ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πεφωτισμένῳ κατὰ 
΄' / 
τὴν ἀνάκλασιν τόπῳ γένηται, TA τρία καθορᾷ, τὴν 
~ \ 
τ᾽ ἀνακλωμένην αὐγὴν καὶ τὸ ποιοῦν ὕδωρ τὴν 
3119 \ \ ¢ Be ἢ 27? a \ σι τ 
ἀνάκλασιν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτὸν ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὸ φῶς τῷ 
ὕδατι προσπῖπτον ἀνακέκλασται. τούτων δ᾽ ὁμο- 
λογουμένων καὶ φαινομένων κελεύουσι τοὺς ava- 
~ ~ 7 
κλάσει φωτίζεσθαι τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τῆς σελήνης 
ἀξιοῦντας ἐπιδεικνύναι νύκτωρ ἐμφαινόμενον τῇ 
/ \ “ a » / ~ Ὁ » 
σελήνῃ τὸν ἥλιον ὥσπερ ἐμφαίνεται τῷ ὕδατι μεθ᾽ 
ἡμέραν' ὅταν ἀνάκλασις ἀπ᾽" αὐτοῦ γένηται" μὴ 
φαινομένου δὲ τούτου κατ᾽ ἄλλον οἴονται “τρόπον 
οὐκ ἀνακλάσει γίγνεσθαι τὸν φωτισμόν: εἰ δὲ μὴ 
~ εἶ ~ Ss \ / +”) ers / > ” 
D τοῦτο, μηδὲ γῆν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην. τί οὖν 
\ » A / >”) « > / 
ἔφη ᾿" ᾿ πρὸς αὐτοὺς λεκτέον ὃ Ἀπολλωνίδης. 
“κοινὰ γὰρ ἔοικε καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὰ τῆς 


1 E3 μεθημέραν -Β. 
2 Wyttenbach (implied by version of Kepler) ; ὑπ᾽ -E, B. 


α i.e. the image of the sun in the water or the reflecting 
surface. 

δ i.e. by the Stoics; cf. e.g. the argument of Cleomedes 
(ii. 4. 101- 102 [p. 184. 4 ff., Ziegler]) against the explanation 
of the moon’s light as reflection. The following argument in 
this passage is printed by von Arnim, S.V./’. ii, p. 199 as 
frag. 675 of Chrysippus. 

ὁ For the idiom, κοινὸν καὶ πρός twa εἶναι, ef. Lucullus, 


148 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 936 


positions of the shadowy and brilliant parts by reason 
of the contrast do not escape our sight. 

23. There is this, however,” I said, “‘ which seems 
to be a stronger objection to the alleged reflection 
from the moon. It happens that those who have 
placed themselves in the path of reflected rays see not 
only the object illuminated but also what illuminates 
it. For example, if when a ray of light rebounds from 
water to a wall the eye is situated in the place that 
is itself illuminated by the reflection, the eye discerns 
all three things, the reflected ray and the water that 
causes the reflection and the sun itself,? the source 
of the light which has been reflected by impinging 
upon the water. On the basis of these admitted and 
apparent facts those who maintain that the moon 
illuminates the earth with reflected light are bidden 
(by their adversaries) ὃ to point out in the moon at 
night an appearance of the sun such as there is in 
water by day whenever there is a reflection of the 
sun from it. Since there is no such appearance, (these 
adversaries) think that the illumination comes about 
in another way and not by reflection and that, if 
there is not reflection, neither is the moon an earth.”’ 
‘““ What response must be made to them then ? ” said 
Apollonides, “‘ for the characteristics of reflection 
seem to present us with a problem in common.” ¢ 
44. (521 a) and 45 (522 8). Apollonides is a geometer (cf. 
920 τὶ and 925 s-B supra) who had expressed admiration for 
Clearchus’s theory of reflection from the moon (cf. 921 Bsupra); 
by καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς here he means that the objection just raised 
to reflection from the moon constitutes a difficulty for the 
theory which he has espoused as well as for that of Lamprias 
and Lucius which he has just attacked. Lamprias in his 
reply, however, contends that the physical characteristics 


of the moon on his theory, the very characteristics to which 
Apollonides has just objected (935 p-£), will explain why the 


149 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(936) ἀνακλάσεως.᾽᾿ “ ἀμέλει τρόπον τινὰ ᾿ ἔφην ἐγὼ 


᾿ κοινά, τρόπον δ᾽ ἄλλον οὐδὲ" κοινά. πρῶτον δ᾽ 
ὅρα τὰ τῆς εἰκόνος ὡς ἄνω ποταμῶν καὶ τραπέμ- 
παλιν᾽ λαμβάνουσιν. ἐπὶ γῆς γάρ ἐστι καὶ κάτω 
τὸ ὕδωρ ὑπὲρ γῆς δὲ σελήνη καὶ μετέωρος" ὅθεν 
ἀντίστροφον αἱ κεκλασμέναι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γωνίας 
ποιοῦσι, τῆς μὲν ἄνω πρὸς τῇ σελήνῃ τῆς δὲ κάτω 
πρὸς τῇ γῇ τὴν κορυφὴν ἐ ἐχούσης .; μὴ ἅπασαν οὖν 
ἰδέαν κατόπτρου" μηδ᾽ ἐκ πάσης ἀποστάσεως 
ὁμοίαν ἀνάκλασιν ποιεῖν ἀξιούτωσαν, ἐπεὶ μάχονται 
πρὸς τὴν ἐνάργειαν." ot δὲ σῶμα μὴ λεπτὸν μηδὲ 
λεῖον, ὥσπερ ἐστὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἀποφαίνοντες τὴν 
σελήνην ἀλλ᾽ ἐμβριθὲς καὶ γεῶδες οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως 
ἀπαιτοῦνται τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν ἔμφασιν ἐν αὐτῇ πρὸς 
τὴν ὄψιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ γάλα τοὺς τοιούτους ἐσοπ- 
τρισμοὺς ἀποδίδωσιν οὐδὲ ποιεῖ τῆς ὄψεως ἀνα- 
κλάσεις διὰ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν καὶ τραχύτητα τῶν 
μορίων: πόθεν γε τὴν σελήνην δυνατόν ἐστιν ἀνα- 
πέμπειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς τὴν ὄψιν ὥσπερ ἀναπέμπει τὰ 
λειότερα τῶν ἐσόπτρων;͵ καίτοι καὶ ταῦτα δή- 
πουθεν, ἐὰν ἀμυχή τις ἢ ῥύπος ἢ τραχύτης κατα- 


1B; οὐ -Ε.. 
Meineke (cf. 994 c supra); τραπὲν πάλιν -E, B. 
Wyttenbach (after Mylander, s version) ; πάρεστι -E, B. 
β 

4 Es πρὸς τὴν κορυφὴν τῆ. γῇ ἐχούσης -B. 

H.C. (of. e.g. Demetrius, 21 [898 B]: πᾶσαν ἰδέαν μάχης) : 
κάτοπτρον -E, B; KaTOTTpwV ΓΕ mperius. 

: Basiliensis ; ἐνέργειαν -K, B. 

7 B; ἐσόπρων -E. 


eo rm 





objection does not really make the difficulty for his theory 
that it would for that of Clearchus. 


150 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 936 


“In common in a way certainly,” said I, “ but in 
another way not incommon either. In the first place 
consider the matter of the image,” how topsy-turvy 
and like ‘rivers flowing uphill δ they conceive it. 
The fact is that the water is on earth and below, and 
the moon above the earth and on high; and hence 
the angles produced by the reflected rays are the 
converse of each other, the one having its apex above 
at the moon, the other below at the earth.” So they 
must not demand that every kind of mirror or a 
mirror at every distance produce a similar reflection, 
since (in doing so) they are at variance with the mani- 
fest facts. Those, on the other hand, who declare 
that the moon is not a tenuous or a smooth body as 
water is but a heavy and earthy one,? I do not under- 
stand why it is required of them that the sun be 
manifest to vision in her. For milk does not return 
such mirrorings either or produce reflections of the 
visual ray, and the reason is the irregularity and 
roughness of its particles ° ; how in the world then 
is it possible for the moon to cast the visual ray back 
from herself in the way that the smoother mirrors 
do? Yet even these, of course, are occluded if a 
scratch or speck of dirt or roughness covers the point 


α j,e, the reflected image, not “ the simile,” as Amyot and 
Prickard interpret it. 

ὃ For the proverbial expression ef. Hesychius, 8.0. ἄνω 
ποταμῶν: Euripides, Medea, 410; Lucian, Dialogi Mor- 
tuorum, 6. 2. 

¢ As Kepler says in his note 64 ad loc., “ἡ ratio nihil ad 
rem.” 

4 j,e, those who hold the view of the moon’s nature that 
Lamprias himself espouses. 

ε Cf. Quaest. Conviv. 696 a; and observe that the phrase, 
ἀνωμαλία καὶ τραχύτης. used here of milk is in 930 ἢ supra and 
937 a infra applied to the moon. 


151 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(936) λάβῃ τὸ σημεῖον [ἂν] ad’ οὗ πέφυκεν ἡ ὄψις 


937 


ἀνακλᾶσθαι," τυφλοῦται" καὶ βλέπεται μὲν αὐτὰ τὴν 
δ᾽ ἀνταύγειαν οὐκ ἀποδίδωσιν. ὁ δ᾽ ἀξιῶν ἢ καὶ 
\ »Μ © ~ > \ εἶ σ΄ a“ \ \ σ > > 
τὴν ὄψιν ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ μηδὲ τὸν ἥλιον ἐφ 
¢ ~ > Na > > « ~ \ , ¢ / > 
ἡμᾶς ἀνακλᾶν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς τὴν σελήνην ἡδύς ἐστι 
τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἥλιον ἀξιῶν εἶναι φῶς δὲ τὴν ὄψιν 
οὐρανὸν δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἡλίου dv 
εὐτονίαν καὶ λαμπρότητα πρὸς τῇ σελήνῃ γιγνο- 
évnv μετὰ πληγῆς τὴν ἀνάκλασιν φέρεσθαι πρὸς 
μένην μ ρ ρ 
ς ΄- > / Ψ ¢ δ᾽ Μ > A \ S A Ἅ \ 
ἡμᾶς εἰκός ἐστιν, ἡ δ᾽ ὄψις ἀσθενὴς οὖσα Kat λεπτὴ 
καὶ ὀλιγοστὴ τί θαυμαστὸν εἰ μήτε πληγὴν ἀνα- 
κρουστικὴν ποιεῖ μήτ᾽ ἀφαλλομένη τηρεῖ τὴν 
7 5 \ / \ 5 / ~ 
συνέχειαν ἀλλὰ θρύπτεται καὶ ἀπολείπει πλῆθος 
οὐκ ἔχουσα φωτὸς ὥστε μὴ διασπᾶσθαι περὶ τὰς 
ἀνωμαλίας καὶ τραχύτητας; ἀπὸ μὲν γὰρ ὕδατος 
καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσόπτρων ἰσχύουσαν ἔτι τῆς ἀρχῆς 
>] \ “δι > \ A iA “ \ > / 
ἐγγὺς οὖσαν ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἅλλεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν 
οὐκ ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν: ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς σελήνης, κἂν γίγ- 
νωνταί τινες ὀλισθήσεις αὐτῆς, ἀσθενεῖς ἔσονται 
καὶ ἀμυδραὶ καὶ προαπολείπουσαι διὰ τὸ μῆκος 
τῆς ἀποστάσεως. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως τὰ μὲν κοῖλα 
1 Excised by Wyttenbach. 
2 Bernardakis ; ἀνακλασθὲν -E, B. 
3 Emperius ; τυποῦται -E, B. 
4 


Madvig (implied by version of Xylander) ; ἀφαλλομένης 
-E, B. 





@ For the phenomenon referred to ef. [Ptolemy], De 
Speculis, vi=Hero Alexandrinus, Opera, ii. 1, p. 330. 4-22 
(Nix-Schmidt). For τυφλόω meaning to deaden, muffle, 
oeclude cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 434 c, Quaest. Conviv. 
721 5, De Hsu Carnium, 995 Fr. 


152 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 936-937 


from which the visual ray is naturally reflected, and 
while the mirrors themselves are seen they do not 
return the customary reflection.*; One who demands 
that the moon either reflect our vision from herself 
to the sun as well or else not reflect the sun from 
herself to us either is naive, for he is demanding that 
the eye be a sun, the vision light, and the human 
being a heaven. Since the light of the sun because 
of its intensity and brilliance arrives at the moon with 
a shock, it is reasonable that its reflection should 
reach to us; but the visual ray, since it is weak and 
tenuous and many times slighter, what wonder if it 
does not have an impact that produces recoil or if in 
rebounding it does not maintain its continuity but is 
dispersed and exhausted, not having light enough to 
keep it from being scattered about the irregularities 
and corrugations (of the moon)? From water, to be 
sure, and from mirrors of other kinds it is not im- 
possible for the reflection (of the visual ray) to re- 
bound to the sun, since it is still strong because it is 
near to its point of origin’ ; but from the moon, even 
if the visual rays do in some cases glance off, they 
will be weak and dim and prematurely exhausted 
because of the magnitude of the distance. What 
is more too, whereas mirrors that are concave make 


® Plutarch has to explain how the image of the sun can be 
seen in water and mirrors though it is not seen in the moon, 
and he does so by stressing the proximity of the former to the 
“ἢ point of origin.’’ This “* point of origin ’’ can only be our 
eyes, so that he must be thinking of the visual ray as reflected 
from water and mirrors to the sun and as failing to be re- 
flected from the moon to the sun. The reading of the mss., 
ἐπὶ Tov ἥλιον, is necessary to the argument and all suggestions 
for altering it are wrong. 

° ze. the distance from the eye to the reflecting surface 
of the moon. 


153 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(937) τῶν ἐσόπτρων εὐτονωτέραν ποιεῖ τῆς προηγου- 
μένης αὐγῆς τὴν ἀνακλωμένην ὥστε καὶ φλόγας 
ἀναπέμπειν πολλάκις, τὰ δὲ κυρτὰ καὶ Ta’ σφαι- 

B ροειδῆ τῷ μὴ πανταχόθεν ἀντερείδειν ἀσθενῆ καὶ 
ἁμαυρὰν (αὐτὴν ἀναδίδωσιν.Σ ὁρᾶτε" δήπουθεν, 
ὅταν ἴριδες δύο φανῶσι νέφους νέφος ἐ ἐμπεριέχοντος, 
ἁμαυρὰ' ποιοῦσαν καὶ ἀσαφῆ τὰ χρώματα τὴν 
περιέχουσαν: τὸ γὰρ ἐκτὸς νέφος ἀπωτέρω τῆς 
ὄψεως κείμενον οὐκ εὔτονον οὐδ᾽ ἰσχυρὰν τὴν ἀνά- 
κλασιν ἀποδίδωσι. καὶ τί δεῖ πλείονα λέγειν; ὅπου 
γὰρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ᾿ἀνακλώμενον ἀπὸ τῆς σε- 
λήνης τὴν μὲν θερμότητα πᾶσαν ἀποβάλλει τῆς δὲ 
λαμπρότητος αὐτοῦ λεπτὸν ἀφικνεῖται μόλις πρὸς 
ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀδρανὲς λείψανον, tov’ τῆς ὄψεως τὸν 
ἴσον φερομένης δίαυλον ἐνδέχεται μόριον ὁτιοῦν 
C λειψάνου ἐξικέσθαι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀπὸ" τῆς σε- 
λήνης; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶμαι. σκοπεῖτε δ᾽ ᾿᾿ εἶπον 
“Kal ὑμεῖς. εἰ ταὐτὰ πρὸς τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὴν σε- 
λήνην ἐ ἔπασχεν 7) ὄψις, Ede” καὶ γῆς καὶ φυτῶν καὶ 
ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἄστρων ἐμφάσεις ποιεῖν τὴν παν- 
σέληνον, οἵας τὰ λοιπὰ ποιεῖται τῶν ἐσόπτρων. 
εἰ δ᾽ οὐ γίγνονται πρὸς ταῦτα τῆς ὄψεως ἀνακλάσεις 


E; καὶ σφαιροειδῆ -B. 
Adler ; ἀμαυρὰν vac. 14-E, 18-B. 
Turnebus ; ὁρᾶται -E, B. 
AG (implied by versions of Xylander, Amyot, and 
Kepler) ; _apavpay -E, B. 

B; 7 που -E. 6 B2; τὴν ἴσην -E, Bt. 

7 H.C. (implied by version of Amyot) ; λείψανον -E, B. 

8 Wyttenbach (implied by versions of Amyot and Kepler) ; 
ὑπὸ -E, B. ® Turnebus ; ὃ δὴ -E, B. 


ὮὉ ὦ Nw μὲ 


« For the concave burning-glass cf. [Euclid], Catoptrica, 
Prop. 30 (Euclid, Opera Omnia, vii, pp. 340-342 [Heiberg]). 


154 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 937 


the ray of light more intense after reflection than it 
was before so as often even to send off flames,” convex 
and spherical mirrors? by not exerting counter- 
pressure upon it from all points (give it off) weak and 
faint. You observe, I presume, whenever two rain- 
bows appear, as one cloud encloses another, that the 
encompassing rainbow produces colours that are faint 
and indistinct. The reason for this is that the outer 
cloud, being situated further off from the eye, returns 
a reflection that is not intense or strong.° Nay, what 
need of further arguments ? When the light of the 
sun by being reflected from the moon loses all its 
heat ὦ and of its brilliance there barely reaches us a 
slight and feeble remnant, is it really possible that 
of the visual ray travelling the same double-course ° 
any fraction of a remnant should from the moon 
arrive at the sun? For my part, I think not; and 
do you too,’ I said, “ consider this. If the visual 
ray were affected in the same way by water and by 
the moon, the full moon ought to show such reflec- 
tions of the earth and plants and human beings and 
stars as all other mirrors do; but, if there occur no 
reflections of the visual ray to these objects either 

δ Not two kinds of mirrors, as Raingeard says ad loc., but 
one, ** convex, 7.e. convex spherical,’’ for (1) spherical mirrors 
that are concave are the burning-glasses in the preceding 
category, and (2) convex mirrors that are not spherical would 
not provide the obvious analogy with the moon that is wanted. 

© On the double rainbow and the reason why the outer bow 
is less distinct cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, 375 a 30-b 15. 
Aristotle’s explanation, which Plutarch here adopts, is 
attacked by Kepler in a long note on the present passage 
(note 70). 4 See note a on 929 κὶ supra. 

¢ The moon is thought of as the καμπτήρ or turning-post 
in the stadium. The sun’s rays travel from sun to moon to 
eye, and the visual ray would have to travel the same course 
in reverse. 


155 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(937) dv ἀσθένειαν αὐτῆς 7 τραχύτητα τῆς σελήνης, μηδὲ 
wis τὸν ἥλιον a ἀπαιτῶμεν. 

Ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν ᾿᾿ ἔφην “᾿ ὅσα μὴ διαπέφευγε 
ἵν» μνήμην τῶν ἐκεῖ λεχθέντων ἀπηγγέλκαμεν. 
ὥρα δὲ καὶ Σύλλαν παρακαλεῖν, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀπαιτεῖν 
τὴν διήγησιν, οἷον ἐπὶ ῥητοῖς ἀκροατὴν γεγενη- 
μένον. ὥστε, εἰ δοκεῖ, καταπαύσαντες τὸν περί- 

D πατον καὶ καθίσαντες ἐπὶ τῶν βάθρων ἑδραῖον 
αὐτῷ παράσχωμεν ἀκροατήριον. i ἔδοξε δὴ ταῦτα, 
καὶ καθισάντων ἡμῶν ὁ Θέων “ ἐγώ τοι, ὦ Λαμ- 
πρία,᾽ εἶπεν “᾿ ἐπιθυμῶ μὲν οὐδενὸς ἧττον ὑμῶν 
ἀκοῦσαι τὰ λεχθησόμενα, πρότερον δ᾽ ἂν ἡδέως 
ἀκούσαιμι περὶ τῶν οἰκεῖν λεγομένων ἐπὶ τῆς 
σελήνης, οὐκ εἰ κατοικοῦσί τινες ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δυνατὸν 
ἐκεῖ κατοικεῖν. εἰ γὰρ οὐ δυνατόν, ἄλογον καὶ τὸ 
γῆν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην᾽ δόξει γὰρ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἀλλὰ 
μάτην γεγονέναι μήτε καρποὺς ἐκφέρουσα μήτ᾽ 
ἀνθρώποις τισὶν ἕδραν παρέχουσα καὶ γένεσιν καὶ 

E δίαιταν, ὧν ἕνεκα καὶ ταύτην γεγονέναι φαμὲν κατὰ 
Πλάτωνα ‘ tpofov* ἡμετέραν, ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτὸς 
ἀτρεκῆ φύλακα καὶ δημιουργόν. ὁρᾷς δ᾽ ὅτι 


1 Stephanus (1624), cf. Timaeus, 40 B; τροφὴν -E, Β. 


* See 921 F, 929 B, 929 F supra. 

> In De Placitis, 892 a=Aétius, ii. 30. 1 this notion is 
ascribed to the Pythagoreans (and in the version of Stobaeus 
specifically to Philolaiis). Diogenes Laertius, ii. 8 ascribes 
it to Anaxagoras—if on the basis of frag. B 4 (ii, p. 34. 5 ff. 
[Diels-Kranz]), wrongly ; and Cicero’s ascription of it to 
Xenophanes (Acad. Prior. 11. xxxix. 123) is certainly an error 
(despite Lactantius, Div. Inst. iii. 23. 12) but more probably 
due to confusion with Xenocrates than, as is usually said, a 
mistake for Anaxagoras (cf. J. S. Reid ad loc. ; Diels-Kranz, 
Frag. der Vorsok.®, i, Ὁ. 125. 40; Diels, Dox. Graeci, Ὁ. 121, 
n. 1). The ‘‘ moon-dwellers ’’ became characters of “* scien- 


156 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 937 


because of the weakness of the ray or the ruggedness 
of the moon, let us not require that there be such 
reflection to the sun either. 

24. So we for our part,” said I, “ have now re- 
ported as much of that conversation? as has not 
slipped our mind; and it is high time to summon 
Sulla or rather to demand his narrative as the agreed 
condition upon which he was admitted as a listener. 
So, if it is agreeable, let us stop our promenade and 
sit down upon the benches, that we may provide him 
with a settled audience.” To this then they agreed ; 
and, when we had sat down, Theon said: “ Though, 
as you know, Lamprias, I am as eager as any of you 
to hear what is going to be said, I should like before 
that to hear about the beings that are said to dwell 
on the moon ’—not whether any really do inhabit it 
but whether habitation there is possible. If it is not 
possible, the assertion that the moon is an earth is 
itself absurd, for she would then appear to have come 
into existence vainly and to no purpose, neither 
bringing forth fruit nor providing for men of some 
kind an origin, an abode, and a means of life, the 
purposes for which this earth of ours came into being, 
as we say with Plato, ᾿ our nurse, strict guardian and 
artificer of day and night.’ 5 You see that there is 


tific fiction ’’ at least as early as Herodorus of Heraclea (cf. 
Athenaeus, ii. 57 f). 

© Timaeus, 40 B-c. Though ἀτρεκῆ does not appear there, 
it is introduced into the passage by Plutarch at 938 πὶ infra 
and at Plat. Quaest. 1006 ©, which indicates that he meant 
it as part of the quotation. Since there appears to be no other 
reference to the words τροφὸν ἡμετέραν in Plutarch’s extant 
works, one cannot be sure that τροφήν here is not his own 
misquotation rather than a scribal error. (The phrase, 
τροφαῖς ζῴων, in De Superstitione, 171 a is probably not part 
of the adaptation of the Timaeus-passage there.) 


157 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA © 


(937) πολλὰ λέγεται καὶ σὺν γέλωτι Kal μετὰ σπουδῆς 
περὶ τούτων. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην οἰκοῦ- 
“ ,ὔ e wee. ae , " 
σιν ὥσπερ Tavrahous ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἐπικρέμασθαί 
φασι τοὺς δ᾽ οἰκοῦντας αὖ πάλιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ 
F ᾿Ιξίονας ἐνδεδεμένους ῥύμῃ τοσζαύτῃ, τῆς κατα- 
φορᾶς κωλύειν τὴν κύκλῳ περιδίνησιν.)" καίτοι 
μίαν οὐ κινεῖται κίνησιν ἀλλ᾽, ὥς που καὶ λέγεται, 
~ ~ ~ ~ \ 
Tpiodtris ἐστιν, ἅμα μῆκος ἐπὶ τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ Kat 
πλάτος ἀντιφερομένη" καὶ βάθος: ὧν τὴν μὲν περι- 

\ \ 89 Ὁ \ > » 4 ~ > / 
δρομὴν τὴν ὃ ἕλικα τὴν δ᾽ οὐκ οἶδα πῶς ἀνωμαλίαν 
ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοί, καίπερ οὐδεμίαν ὁ ὁμα- 
λὴν οὐδὲ τεταγμένην ταῖς ἀποκαταστάσεσιν ὁρῶντες 
ἔχουσαν. οὔκουν" εἰ λέων τις ἔπεσεν ὑπὸ ῥύμης 


1 Stephanus (1624); ἐκ -E, Β. 

2-H. C. (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 155, τς 47); exxpé- 
μασθαί -E, 

AG, (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 146); τόση vac. 
43-E, 30-B. 

«H.C. (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], p. 146); φερομένη -E ; 
ἐπιφερομένη - -Β, Aldine, Basiliensis. 

5 B; ἐχούσαις -E. 
§ Stephanus (1624) ; οὐκ -E, B. 


A Cf. the sarcastic remarks of Lucius in 923 c supra. For 
the “stone of Tantalus ” cf. Nostoi, frag. x (=Athenaeus, 
281 b-c); Pindar, Olympian, i. 57-58 and Isthmian, viii. 
10-11; and Scholia in Olymp. i. 91 a, where reference is made 
to the “ interpretation *’ that the stone which threatens Tan- 
talus is the sun, this being his punishment for having declared 
that the sun is an incandescent mass (cf. also scholiast on 
Euripides, Orestes, 982-986). 

» For the myth of Ixion on his wheel cf. Pindar, Pythian, ii. 
21-48 and for Ixion used in a cosmological argument cf. 
Aristotle, De Caelo, 284 a 34-35. 

¢ An epithet of Hecate (cf. Athenaeus, vii. 325 a) applied 
to the moon only after she had been identified with the moon- 
goddess, after which her epithets had to be explained by 


158 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 937 


much talk about these things both in jest and seri- 
ously. It is said that those who dwell under the moon 
have her suspended overhead like the stone of Tan- 
talus ἃ and on the other hand that those who dwell 
upon her, fast bound like so many Ixions ἢ by such 
great velocity, (are kept from falling by being 
whirled round in a circle). Yet it is not with a single 
motion that she moves; but she is, as somewhere 
she is in fact called, the goddess of three ways,° for 
she moves on the zodiac against the signs in longitude 
and latitude and in depth at the same time. Of these 
movements the mathematicians call the first ἡ revolu- 
tion,’ the second ‘ spiral,’ and the third, I know not 
why, ᾿ anomaly,’ although they see that she has no 
motion at all that is uniform and fixed by regular 
recurrences.? There is reason to wonder then not that 
the velocity caused a lion to fall on the Peloponnesus ¢ 


reference to lunar phenomena. Cf. e.g. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 111 (p. 
202. 5-10 [Ziegler]) on τριπρόσωπος. and Cornutus, Theologiae 
Graecae Compend. 34 (p. 72. 7-15 [Lang]) on τρίμορφος. and 
τριοδῖτις. The etymology here put into Theon’s mouth had 
already been given by Varro in his De Lingua Latina, vii. 16. 
For the moon as Hecate cf. notes 6 on 942 p and g on 944 c 
infra. 

4 For the text, terminology, and intention of these two 
sentences cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 146-147. 

¢ Cf. Epimenides, frag. B 2 (i, p. 32. 22 ff. [Diels-Kranz]) ; 
Anaxagoras, frag. A 77 (ii, p. 24. 25-26 and 28-30 [Diels- 
Kranz]). It may be that Anaxagoras referred to this legend in 
connection with his theory concerning the meteoric stone of 
Aegospotami, the fall of which he is said to have “‘ predicted ”’ 
(Lysander, 12 [439 p-F]; Diogenes Laertius, ii. 10; Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. ii. 58 [59], 149-150). Kepler (note 77) suggests 
that the story of the lion falling from the sky may have arisen 
from a confusion of Adwy (gen. pl. of Adas) and λέων or, as 
Prickard puts it, between Ads and Xis. Diogenes Laertius 
(viii. 72) quotes Timaeus to the effect that Heraclides Ponticus 
spoke of the fall of a man from the moon, an incident which 


159 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(937) εἰς Πελοπόννησον" ἄξιόν ἐστι θαυμάζειν ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως" 
οὐ μυρί᾽ ὁρῶμεν ἀεὶ 
, 575 A > \ , 3 
πεσήματ᾽ ἀνδρῶν κἀπολακτισμοὺς βίων 


HA Ω > / \ , 4 
938 ἐκεῖθεν οἷον ἐκκυβιστώντων καὶ περιτραπέντων. 
καὶ (μὴν)" γελοῖον περὶ μονῆς" τῶν ἐκεῖ διαπορεῖν 
εἰ μὴ γένεσιν μηδὲ σύστασιν ἔχειν δύνανται. ” ὅπου 
γὰρ Αἰγύπτιοι καὶ Τρωγλοδύται, οἷς ἡμέρας μιᾶς 
ἀκαρὲς ἵσταται κατὰ “κορυφὴν ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τροπαῖς 
εἶτ᾽ ἄπεισιν, ὀλίγον ἀπέχουσι τοῦ κατακεκαῦσθαι 
ξηρότητι τοῦ “περιέχοντος, ἥπου τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς σε- 
λήνης εἰκός ἐστι δώδεκα θερείας ὑπομένειν ἔτους 
ἑκάστου, κατὰ μῆνα τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς κάθετον αὐτοῖς 
ἐφισταμένου καὶ στηρίζοντος ὅταν ἢ πανσέληνος; 
πνεύματά γε μὴν καὶ νέφη καὶ ὄμβρους, ὧν χωρὶς 
Β οὔτε γένεσις φυτῶν ἐ ἔστιν οὔτε σωτηρία γενομένοις, 
ἀμήχανον ἐκεῖ διανοηθῆναι συνιστάμενα διὰ θερμό- 
τῆτα καὶ λεπτότητα τοῦ περιέχοντος" οὐδὲ γὰρ 
ἐνταῦθα τῶν ὁρῶν τὰ ὑψηλὰ δέχεται τοὺς ἀγρίους 
Cae / A > \ \ n ge 
καὶ ἐναντίους χειμῶνας, ἀλλζὰ λεπτὸς ὦν" ἤδη 
καὶ σάλον ἔχων ὑπὸ κουφότητος ὁ ἀὴρ ἐκφεύγει 
τὴν σύστασιν ταύτην καὶ πύκνωσιν. εἰ μὴ νὴ Δία 
φήσομεν ὥσπερ ἡ ᾿Αθηνᾷ τῷ ᾿Αχιλλεῖ νέκταρός τι 
Β ; πελοπόνησον -E. 
Turnebus : ὅμως -Ε, Β. 
B (ef. De Curiositate, 517 ἘῚ ; υἵων -E. 
Wyttenbach (cf. De Vitando Aere Alieno, 831 τὸ : περι- 
τραπείς) ; περιτρεπόντων -E, B; περιρρεπόντων -Apelt (Jena, 
1905). 5 Diibner ; καὶ vac. 1-E; καὶ yap -B 
6 Basiliensis ; μόνης -F, B. 
7 Wyttenbach ; δύναται -B; δυναται -E. 
8 Bernardakis (cf. 939 B-c, 939 © infra); ἀλλ᾽ vac. 9-E, 
10-Β. 
Voss after Hirzel refers to a dialogue of his that may have 
160 


ιο © ND μ᾿ 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 937-938 


but how it is that we are not forever seeing count- 
less 


Men falling headlong and lives spurned away,? 


tumbling off the moon, as it were, and turned head 
over heels. It is moreover ridiculous to raise the 
question how the inhabitants of the moon remain 
there, if they cannot come to be or exist. Now, when 
Egyptians and Troglodytes,® for whom the sun stands 
in the zenith one moment of one day at the solstice 
and then departs, are all but burnt to a cinder by the 
dryness of the atmosphere, is it really likely that the 
men on the moon endure twelve summers every year, 
the sun standing fixed vertically above them each 
month at the full moon ? Yet winds and clouds and 
rains, without which plants can neither arise nor 
having arisen be preserved, because of the heat and 
tenuousness of the atmosphere cannot possibly be 
imagined as forming there, for not even here on 
earth do the lofty mountains admit fierce and con- 
trary storms 5 but the air, (being tenuous) already 
and having a rolling swell ὦ as a result of its lightness, 
escapes this compaction and condensation. Other- 
wise, by Heaven, we shall have to say that, as Athena 
when Achilles was taking no food instilled into him 


influenced Plutarch (Voss, De Heraclidis Pontici Vita et 
Scriptis, p. 61). 

@ Aeschylus, Supplices, 937; ef. De Curiositate, 517 F, 
where also Plutarch gives βίων instead of Aeschylus’s 

Lov. 

: > i.e. Ethiopians: cf. Herodotus, iv. 183. 4; Strabo, ii. 
5. 36 (c. 133). 

¢ Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, 340 b 36—341 a 4, 347 a 29- 
35, and Alexander, Meteor. p. 16. 6-15, where lines 10-11 
guarantee and explain the ἐναντίους in Plutarch’s text. 

4 Cf. 939 πε infra and Plat. Quaest. 1005 Ε. 


ΜΟΙ XAT G 161 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(938) Kat ἀμβροσίας ἐνέσταξε μὴ προσιεμένῳ τροφὴν 
οὕτω τὴν σελήνην, ᾿Αθηνᾶν λεγομένην καὶ οὖσαν, 
τρέφειν τοὺς ἄνδρας ἀμβροσίαν ἀνιεῖσαν' αὐτοῖς 
ἐφημέριον, ὡς Φερεκύδης ὁ παλαιὸς οἴεται σιτεῖσθαι 

σ αὐτοὺς {τοὺς )" θεούς. τὴν μὲν γὰρ ᾿Ινδικὴν ῥίζαν 
ἥν φησι Μεγασθένης τοὺς (μήτ᾽ ἐσθίοντας)" μήτε 
πίνοντας ἀλλ᾽ ἀστόμους" ὄντας ὑποτύφειν καὶ 
θυμιᾶν καὶ τρέφεσθαι τῇ ὀσμῇ πόθεν ἄν τις ἐκεῖ 
φυομένην λάβοι, μὴ βρεχομένης τῆς σελήνης; ‘ 

τρί Ταῦτα τοῦ Θέωνος εἰπόντος, ( ὑπέρευ. y 
ἔφην “᾿ καὶ ἄριστα TH παιδιᾷ τοῦ λόγου τὰς "pos 
(ἡμῶν καθῆκας, du») a Kal θάρσος ἡ ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεται 
πρὸς τὴν ἀπόκρισιν μὴ πάνυ TmuK pay" μηδ᾽ αὐστηρὰν 
εὐθύνην προσδοκῶσι. καὶ γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς τῶν 
σφόδρα πεπεισμένων τὰ τοιαῦτα διαφέρουσιν (οὐ- 
δὲν)" ot σφόδρα δυσκολαίνοντες αὐτοῖς καὶ δια- 
πιστοῦντες ἀλλὰ μὴ πράως τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ 
ἐνδεχόμενον ἐθέλοντες ἐπισκοπεῖν. εὐθὺς οὖν τὸ 


1 Emperius ; ἀνεῖσαν -F, B. 

2 Wyttenbach : αὐτοὺς θεούς -E, B. 

-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 (ef. Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 2. 25: 
ἢ nullum illis cibum nullumque potum”’); τοὺς μήτε πίνοντας 
-E, B. 

4 Basiliensis, Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; εὐστόμους -E, B 
(cf. σύστομοι of both mss. in 940 B infra). 

5H. C.; vac. 6-E, B ye. 

6 H.C. (cf.. Amatorius, 753 3B, De Communibus Notitiis, 
1062 Ff); vac. 15-E, 12-B a Ge ute ἀνῆκας, δι) ἃ -Wytten- 
bach. 7 B®; μικρὰν KE, Β΄. 

8 Diibner (τοιαῦτα (οὐδὲν) διαφέρουσιν οἱ -Wyttenbach after 
Xylander’s version) : τοιαῦτα διαφέρουσιν, οἱ -E, B. 


Cf. Iliad, xix. 340-356. 

See 922 a supra and note c there. 

= Pherecydes, frag. B 13 a (i, p. 51. 5-9 [Diels-Kranz]). 
Megasthenes, frag. 34 (Frag. Hist. Graec. ii, pp. 425-427 


aac 8 


162 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 938 


some nectar and ambrosia,” so the moon, which is 
Athena in name and fact,’ nourishes her men by 
sending up ambrosia for them day by day, the food 
of (the) gods themselves as the ancient Pherecydes 
believes.° For even the Indian root which according to 
Megasthenes the Mouthless Men, who (neither eat) 
nor drink, kindle and cause to smoulder and inhale 
for their nourishment,’ how could it be supposed to 
grow there if the moon is not moistened by rain ? ” 
25. When Theon had so spoken, I said “ (Bravo), 
you have most excellently ¢smoothed our) brows by 
the sport of your speech, wherefore we have been 
inspired with boldness to reply, since we anticipate 
no very sharp or bitter scrutiny. It is, moreover, 
a fact that there really is (no) difference between 
those who in such matters are firm believers and those 
who are violently annoyed by them and firmly dis- 
believe and refuse to examine calmly what can be 
and what might be.’ So, for example, in the first 


[Miiller]}) ; ef. Strabo, ii. 1.9 (ce. 70) and xv. 1. 57 (ὁ. 71}: 
Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 2.25. Aristotle (Parva Nat. 445 a 16-17) 
mentions the belief of certain Pythagoreans that some 
animals are nourished by odours; cf. the story told of 
Democritus, frags. A 28 and 29 (ii, p. 89. 23 ff. [Diels-Kranz]), 
and Lucian on the Selenites (Vera Hist. i. 23), a passage 
which, however, looks like a parody of Herodotus, i. 202. 2. 

¢ Strictly, the potential and the contingent ; but probably 
Plutarch meant his phrase here to imply only “ the possible ” 
in all its senses and intended no technical distinction between 
δυνατόν and ἐνδεχόμενον. Certainly one cannot ascribe to him 
the distinction drawn in the pseudo-Plutarchean De Fato, 
570 e—571 £; n.b. that in De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1055 
p-F he attacks the Chrysippean doctrine of δυνατόν. On 
δυνατόν and ἐνδεχόμενον as used by Aristotle cf. Ross, 
Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ii, p. 245 ad 1046 b 26, and Faust, 
Der Méglichkeitsgedanke, i, pp. 175 ff.; for the attitude of 
the Hellenistic philosophers, Faust, op. cit. i, pp. 209 ff. 


163 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(938) πρῶτον οὐκ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ κατοικοῦσιν 
Ὁ ἄνθρωποι τὴν σελήνην, μάτην γεγονέναι καὶ πρὸς 
μηδέν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τήνδε τὴν γῆν δι᾽ ὅλης ἐνεργὸν 
οὐδὲ προσοικουμένην ὁρῶμεν, ἀλλὰ μικρὸν αὐτῆς 
μέρος ὥσπερ ἄκροις τισὶν ἢ χερρονήσοις" ἀνέχουσιν 
ἐκ βυθοῦ γόνιμόν ἐστι ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν τῶν δ᾽ 
ἄλλων τὰ μὲν ἔρημα καὶ ἄκαρπα χειμῶσι καὶ 
αὐχμοῖς τὰ δὲ πλεῖστα κατὰ τῆς μεγάλης δέδυκε 
θαλάσσης. ἀλλὰ σὺ τὸν ᾿Αρίσταρχον ἀγαπῶν ἀεὶ 
καὶ θαυμάζων οὐκ ἀκούεις Κράτητος ἀναγιγνώ- 
σκοντος 


᾿᾽Ὥκεανός, ὅσπερ γένεσις πάντεσσι τέτυκται 
> , γῶν A / > 3 A ¢ 4 
ἀνδράσιν ἠδὲ θεοῖς, πλείστην ἐπὶ" γαῖαν inow. 


> \ ~ A / ~ / \ \ 
ἀλλὰ πολλοῦ δεῖ μάτην ταῦτα γεγονέναι" Kal yap 
E ἀναθυμιάσεις ἡ θάλασσα μαλακὰς ἀνίησι, καὶ τῶν 
πνευμάτων τὰ ἥδιστα θέρους ἀκμάζοντος ἐκ τῆς 
ἀοικήτου καὶ κατεψυγμένης αἱ χιόνες ἀτρέμα δια- 
τηκόμεναι χαλῶσι καὶ διασπείρουσιν. ᾿ ἡμέρας τε 

\ \ ᾽ 4 c > \ ) > / ‘ / ) 

καὶ νυκτὸς ᾿ ἕστηκεν ᾿ ἀτρεκὴς ᾿ ἐν μέσῳ ᾿ φύλαξ 


1 E ; χεροννήσοις -B. 
2 ἀναγινώσκοντος -E : ἀναγινώσκων -B. 
3 πλείστην (δ᾽) ἐπὶ -Leaf ad Iliad. xiv. 246, 
4 Wyttenbach (1831); tow -E, B. 


¢ For the uninhabitability of the arctic and torrid zones 
cf. besides De Iside, 367 pv Strabo, ii. 3. 1 (c. 96) and Cleo- 
medes, i. 2. 12 (p. 22. 11-14 [Ziegler]) ; and for the connection 
of this theory with the notion that the greatest part of the 
outer ocean is in the torrid zone cf. Cleomedes, i. 6. 33 (p. 60. 
21-24). This was not the opinion of Posidonius (Cleomedes, 
ibid. and i. 6. 31-32 [p. 58. 4-25]); it was the geography 
of Cleanthes, which Crates cout to impose upon Homer 
(cf, Geminus, xvi. 21 ff. [Ρ. 172. 11 ff., Manitius]; Kroll, 
R.E. xi. 1637 s.v. “* Krates”’; Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. 


164 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 938 


place, if the moon is not inhabited by men, it is not 
necessary that she have come to be in vain and to 
no purpose, for we see that this earth of ours is not 
productive and inhabited throughout its whole extent 
either but only a small part of it is fruitful of animals 
and plants on the peaks, as it were, and peninsulas 
rising out of the deep, while of the rest some parts 
are desert and fruitless with winter-storms and 
summer-droughts and the most are sunk in the great 
sea. You, however, because of your constant fond- 
ness and admiration for Aristarchus, give no heed 
to the text that Crates read : 


Ocean, that is the universal source 
Of men and gods, spreads over most of earth.? 


Yet it is by no means for nothing that these parts 
have come to be. The sea gives off gentle exhala- 
tions, and the most pleasant winds when summer is 
at its height are released and dispersed from the 
uninhabited and frozen region by the snows that are 
gradually melting there.? ‘A strict guardian and 
artificer of day and night ’ has according to Plato ° 


Jitteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, pp. 5 ff.). Since the 
first line quoted by Plutarch is Jliad, xiv. 246 of our text of 
Homer (with ὠκεανοῦ instead of ὠκεανός) but the second line 
does not occur, the latter was probably an interpolation made 
by Crates to support his “‘ interpretation ᾿"᾿ of Homer’s geo- 
graphy ; for Crates’ textual alterations and for the contro- 
versy between him and Aristarchus cf. Susemihl, op. cit. i, 
p. 457 and ii, p. 7, n. 33; Kroll, loc. cit. 1640; Christ- 
Schmid-Stahlin®, ii. 1, Ὁ. 270; Mette, Sphairopoiia. pp. 60 ff. 

ὃ Cf. Theophrastus, De Ventis, ii, § 11, and Aristotle, 
Meteorology, 364 a 5-13. For ἡ ἀοίκητος without a noun= 
‘the uninhabited world ” cf. Adv. Coloten, 1115 a. 

¢ Lamprias retorts upon Theon an adaptation of his own 
quotation of Timaeus, 40 B-c; ef. 937 © supra and note ὁ 
there. 


165 


(938) 


939 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


κατὰ Πλάτωνα ‘Kat δημιουργός. οὐδὲν οὖν 
κωλύει καὶ τὴν σελήνην ζῴων μὲν ἔρημον εἶναι 
παρέχειν δ᾽ ἀνακλάσεις Te’ τῷ φωτὶ περὶ αὑτὴν" 
διαχεομένῳ καὶ συρροὴν ταῖς τῶν ἀστέρων αὐγαῖς 
ἐν αὑτῇ" καὶ σύγκρασιν, ἡ συνεκπέττει τε τὰς ἀπὸ 
τῆς γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεις ἅμα τε καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου: τὸ 
ἔμπυρον ἄγαν καὶ σκληρὸν ἀνίησι" Kat mov’ τι 
\ ~ / / »Μ 
καὶ παλαιᾷ φήμῃ διδόντες Ἄρτεμιν αὐτὴν" νομι- 
σθῆναι φήσομεν ὡς παρθένον καὶ ἄγονον ἄλλαις" δὲ 
βοηθητικὴν καὶ ὠφέλιμον. ἔπειτα" τῶν γ᾽ εἰρη- 
μένων οὐδέν, ὦ φίλε" Θέων, ἀδύνατον δείκνυσι τὴν 
λεγομένην ἐ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς οἴκησιν" ἢ τε γὰρ δίνη πολλὴν 
ἔχουσα πραότητα καὶ γαλήνην ἐπιλεαίνει τὸν ἀέρα 
καὶ διανέμει" συγκατακοσμούμενον ὥστε μηδὲν 
εἶναι δέος ἐκπεσεῖν καὶ ἀποσφαλῆναι τοὺς ἐκεῖ 
βεβηκότας." εἰ δὲ μηδ᾽ ἁπλῆ," καὶ τὸ ποικίλον 
τοῦτο τῆς φορᾶς καὶ πεπλανημένον οὐκ ἀνωμαλίας 
2Q\ es > \ hi Sf ἢ 15 
οὐδὲ ταραχῆς ἐστιν ἀλλὰ θαυμαστὴν ἐπιδείκνυνται 
τάξιν ἐν τούτοις καὶ πορείαν οἱ ἀστρολόγοι, κύκλοις 
τισὶ περὶ κύκλους ἑτέρους ἐξελιττομένοις συνάγοντες 
αὐτὴν οἱ μὲν ἀτρεμοῦσαν οἱ δὲ λείως καὶ ὁμαλῶς 
1 E; omitted by B. 
2 H.C. ; avrqv -E, B 
5. Ἢ {9 avr τῇ. B. 
4B; omitted by E. 
5 Wyttenbach; 70 #\w -E, B. 
6 Wyttenbach ; ἀφίησι -E, B. 
ῷ Wyttenbach ; καὶ πολύ -E, B 
8 B; avr vac. 4-E. 
9 H.C. (ἄλλοις -W yttenbach) ; ἄλλως -E, B. 
10 Hutten ; ἐπεὶ -E, 


1 Xylander ; ὠφελεῖν Bs B. 
12 Wyttenbach ; διαμένει δ τὰ Β. 


166 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 938-939 


been stationed in the centre. Nothing then prevents 
the moon too, while destitute of living beings, from 
providing reflections for the light that is diffused 
about her and for the rays of the stars a point of con- 
fluence in herself and a blending whereby she digests 
the exhalations from the earth and at the same time 
slackens the excessive torridity and harshness of the 
sun.?. Moreover, conceding a point perhaps to 
ancient tradition also, we shall say that she was held 
to be Artemis on the ground that she is a virgin and 
sterile but is helpful and beneficial to other females.? 
In the second place, my dear Theon, nothing that 
has been said proves impossible the alleged inhabita- 
tion of the moon. As to the rotation, since it is very 
gentle and serene, it smooths the air and distributes 
it in settled order, so that there is no danger of falling 
and slipping off for those who stand there. And if 
it is not simple either,° even this complication and 
variation of the motion is not attributable to irregu- 
larity or confusion ; but in them astronomers demon- 
strate a marvellous order and progression, making 
her revolve with circles that unroll about other circles, 
some assuming that she is herself motionless and 
others that she retrogresses smoothly and regularly 


2 Cf. 928 c supra. 

ὃ For moon= Artemis cf. 922 a supra and note ὁ there; for 
the virgin goddess of childbirth cf. besides the references 
there Plato, Theaetetus, 149 8, and Cornutus, 34 (p. 73. 18 ff. 
[Lang]. 

¢ This refers to 937 F supra. For the use of ἁπλῆ “* simple ” 
in this context cf. Cleomedes, i. 4. 19 (p. 34. 20 [Ziegler]) and 
Theon of Smyrna, p. 150. 21-23 (Hiller). 


13 'Turnebus ; βεβιωκότας -E, B. 
14, H.C. - εἰ δέει px de αὐτὴ -E, B. 
15 Basiliensis ; ἐπιδείκνυται -E, B. 


167 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(939) ἀεὶ τάχεσι Tots αὐτοῖς ἀνθυποφερομένην: αὗται yap 
at τῶν κύκλων ἐπιβάσεις καὶ περιαγωγαὶ καὶ 
σχέσεις πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὰ φαινόμενα 
τῆς κινήσεως. ὕψη καὶ βάθη καὶ τὰς κατὰ πλάτος 

Β παραλλάξεις ἅμα ταῖς κατὰ μῆκος αὐτῆς περιόδοις 
ἐμμελέστατα συμπεραίνουσι." τὴν δὲ πολλὴν θερ- 
μότητα καὶ “συνεχῆ πύρωσιν ὑφ᾽ ἡλίου παύσῃ" 
φοβούμενος ἂν πρῶτον μὲν ἀντιθῆς" ταῖς δώδεκα“ 
θεριναῖς πανσελήνοις τὰς συνόδους ὑποθῇ" δὲ τὸ 
συνεχὲς τῆς μεταβολῆς ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς χρόνον οὐκ 
ἐχούσαις πολὺν ἐμποιεῖν κρᾶσιν οἰκείαν καὶ τὸ 
ἄγαν ἑκατέρας ἀφαιρεῖν. διὰ μέσου * δὴν τούτων, ὡς 
εἰκός, ὥραν ἔαρι προσφορωτάτην"" ἔχουσιν. ἔπειτα 
πρὸς μὲν ἡμᾶς καθίησι δι᾿ ἀέρος θολεροῦ καὶ συν- 

C επερείδοντος"" θερμότητα ταῖς ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρεφο- 
μένην, ἐκεῖ δὲ λεπτὸς ὧν καὶ διαυγὴς 6 ἀὴρ σκίδνησι 
καὶ διαχεῖ τὴν αὐγὴν ὑπέκκαυμα καὶ σῶμα μηδὲν 

Basiliensis ; συμπαραινοῦσι -E, B. 

Basiliensis ; ἡλίου οὐ παύσῃ -E, B. 

E; ἀντιθεὶς -B. 


Kepler (implied by Amy ot’ s version); ἕνδεκα -Ἐ, B. 

Adler ; θεριναῖς συνόδοις τὰς πανσελήνους -Ε, 

Η. Ο. : εἴση -E, B, Aldine; εἶτα - -Basiliensis. | 

E; ἐχούσας -B ; ee -Basiliensis. 

Bernardakis ; ἀμέσου -F, 

H.C.; δὲ -Ε, B. 1° Basiliensis ; προσφορωτάτων -E, B. 
11 Diibner; συνεπερείδων τὴν -E, Bs; συνεπερείδοντος τὴν 

-Emperius. 


1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 


¢ An example of the former hypothesis is Aristotle’s theory 
that each planet is fixed in a sphere revolving within counter- 
acting spheres that cancel the special motions of the superior 
planet (cf. Metaphysics, 1073 Ὁ 38—1074 a 14 and De Caelo, 
289 Ὁ 30—290 a7); an example of the latter is Plato’s theory 
of freely moving planets (cf. Timaeus, 40 c-p, Laws, 822 a-c ; 
Cornford, Plato’s Cosmology, pp. 79-93). Theon of Smyrna 


168 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 939 


with ever constant velocity,“ for these superpositions 
of the circles and their rotations and relations to one 
another and to us combine most harmoniously to 
produce the apparent variations of her motion in 
altitude and the deviations in latitude at the same 
time as her revolutions in longitude.’ As to the great 
heat and continual scorching of the sun, you will cease 
to fear it, if first of all you set the conjunctions over 
against the twelve summery full-moons ° and suppose ᾿ 
that the continuousness of the change produces in 
the extremes, which do not last a long time, a suit- 
able tempering and removes the excess from either. 
Between these then, as is likely, they have a season 
most nearly approaching spring. In the second place, 
upon us the sun sends, through air which is turbid and 
which exerts a concomitant pressure, heat that is 
nourished by the exhalations, whereas there the air 
being tenuous and translucent scatters and diffuses the 
sun’s light, which has no tinder or body to sustain it.? 


(p. 175. 1-4 [Hiller]) observes that the difference between 
these two kinds of astronomical model is immaterial in 
‘saving the phenomena.” On the whole passage cf. 
Eudemus in Theon of Smyrna, p. 200. 13 ff. (Hiller). 

ὃ Norlind (Hranos, xxv [1927], pp. 275-277) argues from 
the terms used here and in 937 τὶ supra that Plutarch has in 
mind the theory of epicycles which Hipparchus proposed for 
the moon and which is described by Ptolemy, Syntazis, iv (i, 
pp. 265 ff. and especially pp. 301. 16-302, 11 [Heiberg]). The 
evidence of the terminology is not exact enough to make this 
thesis convincing (cf. Class. Phil. xlvi [1951], pp. 146-147). 

¢ Cf. 938 a supra: “ twelve summers every year. 

¢ For the ‘“ pressure” of the air and the ὑπέκκαυμα ef. 
Aristotle, Meteorology, 341 b 6-25, and Alexander, Meteor. 
p- 20. 11 ff. Praechter (Hierokles der Stoiker, Ὁ. 109) refers 
to Seneca, Nat. Quaest. iv b 10 in support of his thesis that 
the material in this chapter of the De Facie is from a Stoic 
source. 


169 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(939) ἔχουσαν. ὕλην δὲ καὶ καρποὺς αὐτοῦ μὲν ὄμβροι 
/ e. fox ‘U1 ¢ ” \ ΄ > 
τρέφουσιν, ἑτέρωθι δὲ; ὥσπερ ἄνω περὶ Θήβας παρ 
« - \ / » »” [2 > \ \ 
ὑμῖν Kat Συήνην οὐκ ὄμβριον ὕδωρ ἀλλὰ ynyeves 
ἡ yh πίνουσα Kal χρωμένη πνεύμασι Kat δρόσοις 
οὐκ ἂν ἐθελήσειεν, οἶμαι, τῇ πλεῖστον ὑομένῃ πο- 
λυκαρπίᾳ" συμφέρεσθαι" dV ἀρετήν τινα καὶ κρᾶσιν. 
\ > > \ \ ~ / -νοῦ s a \ FRG / 
τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ φυτὰ τῷ γένει παρ᾽ ἡμῖν μὲν ἐὰν σφόδρα 
πιεσθῇ χειμῶσιν" ἐκφέρει πολὺν καὶ καλὸν καρπὸν 
Ὁ ἐν δὲ Λιβύῃ" καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ δύσριγα 
κομιδῇ καὶ δειλὰ πρὸς χειμῶνάς ἐστι.. τῆς δὲ 
Γεδρωσίας" καὶ Γρωγλοδύτιδος" ἣ καθήκει πρὸς τὸν 
> \ > / \ / \ > / / 
ὠκεανὸν ἀφόρου διὰ ξηρότητα καὶ adévdpov παντά- 
πασιν οὔσης, ἐν τῇ παρακειμένῃ καὶ περικεχυμένῃ 
θαλάττῃ θαυμαστὰ μεγέθη φυτῶν τρέφεται καὶ 
κατὰ βυθοῦ τέθηλεν ὧν τὰ μὲν ἐλαίας τὰ δὲ δάφνας 
1 Wyttenbach after Xylander’s version ; αὐτοὶ. . . ἑτέρως 
-E, B. 
2 Stephanus (1624); 7 ye -Εἰ, B. 
3 Aldine, Basiliensis ; πολυκαρπία -E, B (probably meant 
for dative, since neither ms. uses iota subscript). 
4 Leonicus (implied by version of Xylander) ; συμφαίνεσθαι 
B; συμφύρεσθαι -Stephanus. 
Bernardakis ; εἰ -E, B. . 
ἘΠ, B; χιόσιν -E*. 
ἘΠῚ ween "ΒῚ 


B; γε δροσίας -E. 
ΒΕ ; τρωγλοδίτιδος -B. 


- 


oOo 2 ᾽ Ne 


α Tamprias is addressing Theon primarily ; but Menelaiis 
also was from Egypt, though we know only Alexandria as 
his residence. 

ὃ Theophrastus (ist. Plant. viii. 6. 6) says that in Egypt, 
Babylon, and Bactria, where rain is absent or scarce, dews 


170 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 939 


The fruits of tree and field here in our region are 
nourished by rains; but elsewhere, as up in your 
home “ around Thebes and Syene, the land drinking 
water that springs from earth instead of rain-water 
and enjoying breezes and dews? would refuse, I 
think, to adapt itself ¢ to the fruitfulness that attends 
the most abundant rainfall, and that because of a 
certain excellence and temperament that it has. 
Plants of the same kind, which in our region if sharply 
nipped by winter bear good fruit in abundance, in 
Libya and in your home in Egypt are very sensitive 
to cold and afraid of winter.? And, while Gedrosia 
and Ethiopia which comes down to the ocean is barren 
and entirely treeless because of the aridity, in the 
adjacent and surrounding sea there grow and thrive 
down in the deep plants of great magnitude, some 
of which are called olives, some laurels, and some 


nourish the crops (cf. also Hist. Plant. iv. 3. 7). Plutarch’s 
statement here that the water drunk by the land in Egypt is 
ynyeves may have been inspired by Plato’s remark in Timaeus, 
22 πὶ 2-4; for the theory that the flood of Nile was caused by 
water springing from the earth cf. Oenopides, frag. 11 (i, 
p. 394. 39 ff. [Diels-Kranz]; cf. Seneca, Nat. Quaest. iv a 2. 
26) and the opinion mentioned without an author by Seneca, 
Nat. Quaest. vi. 8.3. Praechter (Hierokles, Ὁ. 110) holds that 
Plutarch here reflects Posidonius’s theory as reconstructed by 
Oder (Philologus, Suppl. vii [1898], pp. 299 ff. and 312 f.). 

¢ For this meaning of συμφέρεσθαί τινι cf. Quomodo Quis 
Sent. Prof. Virt. 79 a, De Cohibenda Ira, 461 a, De Sollertia 
Animalium, 960 ©, Timoleon, 15 (242 £), Wyttenbach’s 
Animadversiones in Plutarchi Opera Moralia (Leipzig, 
1820), i, p. 461; the phrase cannot mean “ to be compared 
with,” as it has been regularly translated here. 

@ That the same species of plant varies with the nature of 
the soil, the atmosphere, and the cultivation is frequently 
stated by Theophrastus (cf. e.g. Hist. Plant. vi. 6. 3-5-8) ; 
cf. with ἐὰν σφόδρα πιεσθῇ χειμῶσιν in this passage Theo- 
phrastus, De Causis Plant. ii. 1. 2-4. 


171 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(939) ra δ᾽ Ἴσιδος τρίχας καλοῦσιν. οἱ δ᾽ ἀνακαμψέρω- 
τες οὗτοι προσαγορευόμενοι τῆς γῆς ἐξαιρεθέντες 
οὐ μόνον ζῶσι κρεμάμενοι χρόνον ὅσον βούλεταί 
τις ἀλλὰ βλαστάνουσιν {. . .). omretperau δὲ τὰ 
μὲν πρὸς χειμῶνος τὰ δὲ θέρους ἀκμάζοντος ὥσπερ 
σήσαμον καὶ μελίνη. τὸ" δὲ θύμον ἢ ἢ τὸ κενταύριον, 

E av εἰς ἀγαθὴν καὶ πίονα σπαρῇ χώραν καὶ βρέχηται 
καὶ ἄρδηται, τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἐξίσταται ποιότητος 
καὶ ἀποβάλλει τὴν δύναμιν αὐχμῷ δὲ χαίρει καὶ 
πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐπιδίδωσιν. ἔνια δ᾽ ὥς φασιν οὐδὲ 
τὰς δρόσους ἀνέχεται, καθάπερ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν 
᾿Αραβικῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξαμαυροῦται διαινόμενα' καὶ 
φθείρεται, τί δὴ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν εἰ γίγνονται περὶ 
τὴν σελήνην ῥίζαι καὶ σπέρματα καὶ ὗλαι μηδὲν 
ὑετῶν δεόμεναι" pnoe’ χιόνων ἀλλὰ πρὸς αν 
ἀέρα καὶ λεπτὸν εὐφυῶς ἔχουσαι; πῶς δ᾽ οὐκ 
εἰκὸς ἀνιέναι τε πνεύματα θαλπόμενα τῇ vedo 

F καὶ τῷ σάλῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς αὔρας τε παρομαρτεῖν 
ἀτρέμα καὶ δρόσους καὶ ὑγρότητας ἐλαφρὰς περι- 
χεούσας καὶ διασπειρομένας ἐπαρκεῖν τοῖς βλα- 
στάνουσιν, αὐτὴν" δὲ τῇ κράσει μὴ πυρώδη μηδ᾽ 
αὐχμηρὰν ἀλλὰ μαλακὴν καὶ ὑδροποιὸν εἶναι; ξη- 
ρότητος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀφικνεῖται πάθος am’ αὐτῆς 


1 Vac. 21-E, 20-Β. 

2 E; τὸν -B. 

3 Paton: of δὲ -E, B, Aldine; τὰ δὲ -Basiliensis; εἰ δὲ 
-Stephanus (1624). 

4 Wyttenbach (after the version of Xylander) ; ; λειαινόμενα 
-E, B. 

ὃ -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 : τί δὲ -E, B. 

6 Bernardakis ; δεόμενα -Ε,, Β. 

7 Bernardakis ; μήτε -ὸ, B. 

8 [Leonicus, Stephanus (1624) ; πρόσθερον -E, B. 

® Wyttenbach ; αὐτῆ (i.e. αὐτῇ) -E, B 


172 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 939 


tresses of Isis“; and the plants here called ° love- 
restorers ’ when lifted out of the earth and hung up 
not only live as long as you wish but sprout? ¢. . .). 
Some plants are sown towards winter, and some at 
the height of summer as sesame and millet.° Thyme 
or centaury, if sown in good, rich soil and wetted and 
watered, departs from its natural quality and loses 
its strength, whereas drought delights it and causes 
it to reach its proper stature 7; and some plants, as 
they say, cannot stand even dew, as is true of the 
majority of Arabian plants, but are blighted and 
destroyed by being moistened. What wonder then 
if on the moon there grow roots and seeds and trees 
that have no need of rain nor yet of snow but are 
naturally adapted to a summery and rarefied air ἢ 
And why is it unlikely that winds arise warmed by 
the moon and that breezes steadily accompany the 
rolling swell of her revolution and by scattering off 
and diffusing dews and light moisture suffice for the 
vegetation and that she herself is not fiery or dry in 
temperament but soft and humidifying ? After all, no 
influence of dryness comes to us from her but much of 

¢ On these plants that grew in the sea cf. Theophrastus, 
Hist. Plant. iv. 7. 1 ff.; Eratosthenes in Strabo, xvi. 3. 6 
(ec. 766); Pliny, Nat. Hist. xiii. 25. 50-52 (140-142). In 
Quaest, Nat. 911 ¥ Plutarch refers to the plants that are said 
to grow in the *“‘ Red Sea,”’ but there he states that they are 
nurtured by the rivers which bring down mud and that these 
plants consequently grow only near to the shore. 

® Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxiv. 17. 102 (167). 

¢ Cf. Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. viii. 1. 1 and 4; 2.6; 
and 3. 2. 

4 Cf. Theophrastus, De Causis Plant. iii. 1. 3-6. 

¢ For the notion that dew injures some plants cf. possibly 
Theophrastus, De Causis Plant. vi. 18. 10; but he holds that 
desert vegetation is nourished by dew in default of rain (Hist. 
Plant. iv. 8. 7 and viii. 6. 6). 


18 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(939) πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὑγρότητος δὲ πολλὰ καὶ θηλύτητος, 
αὐξήσεις φυτῶν, σήψεις κρεῶν, τροπαὶ καὶ ἀνέσεις 
οἴνων, μαλακότητες ξύλων, εὐτοκίαι γυναικῶν. δέ- 

940 δοικα δ᾽ ἡσυχάζοντα Φαρνάκην αὖθις ἐρεθίζειν καὶ 
κινεῖν, ὠκεανοῦ Te’ πλημμύρας, ὡς λέγουσιν αὐτοί, 
καὶ πορθμῶν ἐπιδόσεις διαχεομένων καὶ nee 
μένων ὑπὸ τῆς σελήνης τῷ ἀνυγραίνεσθαι παρα- 
τιθέμενος. διὸ πρὸς σὲ τρέψομαι μᾶλλον, ὦ φίλε 
Θέων: λέγεις γὰρ ἡμῖν, ἐξηγούμενος ταυτὶ" τὰ 
᾿Αλκμᾶνος 


(οἷα Διὸς" θυγάτηρ “Epoa* τρέφει καὶ Σελάνας 
(δίας), 


ὅτι νῦν τὸν ἀέρα καλεῖ Δία καί φησιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ 
τῆς σελήνης καθυγραινόμενον εἰς δρόσους τρέ- 
πεσθαι. κινδυνεύει γάρ, ὦ ἑταῖρε, πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον 
ἀντιπαθῆ φύσιν ἔχειν εἴγε μὴ μόνον ὅσα πυκνοῦν 
Β καὶ ξηραίνειν ἐκεῖνος αὐτὴ μαλάσσειν καὶ διαχεῖν 
πέφυκεν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου θερμότητα καθ- 
υγραίνειν καὶ καταψύχειν προσπίπτουσαν αὐτῇ καὶ 


1 Basiliensis ; ὥστε καὶ ἀνοιγαὶ -E, B. 

2 Bernardakis ; ταύτη -E, B. 

3 Xylander (cf. Quaest. Nat. 918 a, Quaest. Conviv. 659 B) ; 
vac. 6-E, 12-B. 

4 Xylander; ἔργα -Εἰ, B. 

5 Wyttenbach (cf. mss. of 918 a); καὶ LeAdvas without 
lacuna -F, B. 

6. Wyttenbach ; καλεῖ καὶ Δία -F, B. 


«ΟἽ. De Vita et Poesi Homeri, B, 202 (vii, p. 450. 14-20 
[Bernardakis]) ; Aristotle, Hist. Animal. 582 a 34-b 3. 

δ On the liquefying action of the moon and the passage in 
general cf. Quaest. Conviv. iii. 10 (657 F ff.) ; De Iside, 367 Ὁ ; 
Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, ii. 19. 50 (with Mayor’s note ad 
loc.); Pliny, Nat. Hist. 11. 101 (223). On the growth of 


114. 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 939-940 


moistness and femininity “: the growth of plants, the 
decay of meats, the souring and flattening of wine, 
the softening of timbers, the easy delivery of women.? 
Now that Pharnaces is quiet I am afraid of provoking 
and arousing him again if I cite, in the words of his 
own school, the flood-tides of Ocean and the swelling 
of the straits when they are increased and poured 
abroad by the liquefying action of the moon.* There- 
fore I shall rather turn to you, my dear Theon, for 
when you expound these words of Aleman’s, 


«Such as) are nourished by Dew, daughter (of Zeus) and 
of (divine) Selene,? 


you tell us that at this point he calls the air “ Zeus ’ 
and says that it is liquefied by the moon and turns 
to dew-drops.’ It is in fact probable, my friend, that 
the moon’s nature is contrary to that of the sun, if 
of herself she not only naturally softens and dissolves 
all that he condenses and dries but liquefies and cools 
even the heat that he casts upon her and imbues her 


plants cf. also De Iside, 353 τ and Athenaeus, iii. 74 c¢; on 
softening of timbers Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. v. 1.3; on 
easy delivery S.V.F. ii, frag. 748. For further literature cf. 
Boll, Sternglaube und Sterndeutung® (1926), pp. 122-125. 

¢ =S.V.F. ii, frag. 679. Cf. also Cicero, De Divinatione, 
ii. 34 (with Pease’s note ad loc.) and De Nat. Deorum, ii. 7. 
19; Seneca, De Provid. i. 4; Cleomedes, ii. 1. 86 (p. 156. 
15-16 [Ziegler]) and ii. 3. 98 (p. 178. 4-5); Strabo, iii. 5. 8 
(ce. 173 f.) and i. 3. 11 (ec. 54-55). In De Placitis, 897 B-c 
(= Aétius, iii. 17. 3 and 9) theories that the moon influences 
the tides are attributed to Pytheas and to Seleucus. 

¢ Aleman, frag. 43 (Diehl) =48 (Bergk*). In both Quaest. 
Conviv. 659 B and Quaest. Nat. 918 a Plutarch quotes the 
line as an explanation of the origin of dew, Cf. Macrobius, 
Sat. vii. 16. 31-32. 

¢ Of. Vergil, Georgics, iii. 337 ; Roscher, Selene und Ver- 
wandtes, p. 50, n. 900. 


175 


(940) 


« 


C 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


συμμιγνυμένην. οἵ τε δὴ τὴν σελήνην ἔμπυρον 
σῶμα καὶ διακαὲς εἶναι νομίζοντες ἁμαρτάνουσιν, 
οἵ τε τοῖς ἐκεῖ ζῴοις ὃ ὅσα τοῖς ἐνταῦθα πρὸς γένεσιν 
καὶ τροφὴν καὶ δίαιταν ἀξιοῦντες ὑπάρχειν ἐοίκασιν 
ἀθεάτοις" τῶν περὶ τὴν φύσιν" ἀνωμαλιῶν, ἐν αἷς 
μείζονας ἔστι καὶ πλείονας" πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ζῴων 
ἢ πρὸς τὰ μὴ ζῷα διαφορὰς καὶ ἀνομοιότητας 
εὑρεῖν. καὶ “ἄστομοι᾽ μὲν ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὀσμαῖς 
τρεφόμενοι μὴ ἔστωσαν, οἵ" Με(γασθένει γ᾽ εἶναι 
δοκοῦσι. τὴν δ᾽ ἄλιμον' ns” ἡμῖν αὐτὸς ἐξηγεῖτο 
δύναμιν ἠνίξατο μὲν ᾿Ησίοδος εἰπὼν 


οὐδ᾽ ὅσον ἐν μαλάχῃ ae καὶ ἀσφοδέλῳ μέγ᾽ 
ὄνειαρ 


ἔργῳ. δ᾽ ἐμφανῆ παρέσχεν ᾿Επιμενίδης διδάξας ὅτι 
μικρῷ παντάπασιν ἡ φύσις ὑπεκκαύματι ζωπυρεῖ 
καὶ συνέχει τὸ ζῷον, ἂν ὅσον ἐλαίας μέγεθος λάβῃ, 
μηδεμιᾶς ἔτι τροφῆς δεόμενον. τοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς 
σελήνης, εἴπερ εἰσίν, εὐσταλεῖς εἶναι τοῖς σώμασι 
καὶ διαρκεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν τυχόντων τρέφεσθαι πιθανόν 
ἐστι. καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν σελήνην ὥσπερ τὸν ἥλιον, 


Stephanus (1624); δὲ -E, B. 
Xylander ; ἐοίκασι καὶ θεαταῖς -E, B. 
E ; περὶ φύσιν -B. 4B; πλέονας -E. 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 (cf. 938 ὁ supra); σύστομοι -E, 
B, Aldine, Basiliensis. 
6 Wyttenbach; εἰ -E, B. 
7H. C. after Adler’s (καὶ Meyac@éver) : μὴ vac. 8-E, 9-B μὴ. 
8 Adler (1933) ; τήν τε dupovos -E, B 
® H.C. (for the final os in ἀμμονος). 


σι ὦ τὸ μὲ 


« Of. Aristotle, Hist. Animal. 588 Ὁ 4 ff. and De Part. 
Animal, 681 a 12-15. 
>» See 938 ὁ supra and note ὦ there. On the text and im- 


176 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 940 


with. They err then who believe the moon to be a 
fiery and glowing body ; and those who demand that 
living beings there be equipped just as those here 
are for generation, nourishment, and livelihood seem 
blind to the diversities of nature, among which one 
can discover more and greater differences and dis- 
similarities between living beings than between them 
and inanimate objects.? Let there not be mouthless 
men nourished by odours who (Megasthenes) thinks 
(do exist) ®; yet the Hungerbane,° the virtue of 
which he was himself trying to explain to us, Hesiod 
hinted at when he said 


Nor what great profit mallow has and squill 4 


and Epimenides made manifest in fact when he 
showed that with a very little fuel nature kindles and 
sustains the living creature, which needs no further 
nourishment if it gets as much as the size of an olive.? 
It is plausible that the men on the moon, if they do 
exist, are slight of body and capable of being nourished 
by whatever comes their way. After all, they say 
that the moon herself, like the sun which is an 


plication of this sentence cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 147- 
148. 

¢ For ἡ ἄλιμος cf. Sept. Sap. 157 p-F ; [Plutarch], Comment. 
in Hesiod. § 3 (vii, p. 51. 14 ff. [Bernardakis]); Pliny, Nat. 
Hist. xxii. 22 (73); Porphyry, Vita Pythag. § 34 and De 
Abstinentia, iv. 20 (p. 266. 5 ff. [Nauck]) ; Plato, Laws, 677 Ἐ 
(where the word ἄλιμος itself does not occur, however). 

4 Works and Days, 41. 

4 Cf. Epimenides, frag. A 5 (i, pp. 30-31 [Diels-Kranz]), 
where reference to this passage should be added. 

7 Cf. Aristotle, De Gen. Animal. 761 Ὁ 21-23 for the sug- 
gestion that animate beings of a kind unknown to us may 
exist on the moon and [Philoponus], De Gen. Animal. p. 160. 
16-20 for a description of these creatures that do not eat or 
drink. 


Wer 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 
(940) 


~ »Μ 4 \ ~ ~ »” / 
D ζῷον ὄντα πύρινον καὶ τῆς γῆς ὄντα πολλαπλάσιον, 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ͵ὕ 
ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν φασι τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τρέφεσθαι 
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀστέρας ἀπείρους ὄντας: οὕτως 
> \ \ \ ~ > / / ~ \ 
ἐλαφρὰ καὶ λιτὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων φέρειν ζῷα τὸν 
Μ / Φ / > > » ~ 
ἄνω τόπον ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε ταῦτα 
συνορῶμεν οὔθ᾽ ὅτι καὶ χώρα καὶ φύσις καὶ κρᾶσις 
ἄλλη πρόσφορός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς. ὥσπερ οὖν, εἰ τῇ 
θαλάττῃ μὴ δυναμένων ἡμῶν προσελθεῖν μηδ᾽ 
΄ o. \ \ / >] ro / > 
ἅψασθαι μόνον δὲ τὴν. θέαν αὐτῆς πόρρωθεν ad- 
ορώντων καὶ πυνθανομένων ὅτι πικρὸν καὶ ἄποτον 
A c \ [2 » \ ” ,ὔ ς ~ A 
Kal ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἔλεγέ τις ws ζῷα πολλὰ 
E καὶ μεγάλα καὶ παντοδαπὰ ταῖς μορφαῖς τρέφει 
κατὰ βάθους καὶ θηρίων ἐστὶ πλήρης ὕδατι χρω- 
μένων ὅσαπερ ἡμεῖς ἀέρι, μύθοις ἂν ὅμοια καὶ 
. 
τέρασιν ἐδόκει περαίνειν: οὕτως ἐοίκαμεν ἔχειν καὶ 
/ ~ ~ 
ταὐτὸ πάσχειν' πρὸς τὴν σελήνην ἀπιστοῦντες ἐκεῖ 
τινας ἀνθρώπους κατοικεῖν. ἐκείνους δ᾽ ἂν οἴομαι 
ΡῈ / a ~ 
πολὺ μᾶλλον ἀποθαυμάσαι τὴν γῆν, ἀφορῶντας 
οἷον ὑποστάθμην καὶ ἰλὺν τοῦ παντὸς ἐν ὑγροῖς 
\ ς / \ / / 5 \ \ 
καὶ ὁμίχλαις καὶ νέφεσι διαφαινομένην ἀλαμπὲς καὶ 
ταπεινὸν καὶ ἀκίνητον χωρίον, εἰ ζῷα φύει καὶ τρέ- 
φει μετέχοντα κινήσεως ἀναπνοῆς θερμότητος. κἂν 
F εἴ ποθεν αὐτοῖς ἐγγένοιτο τῶν ᾿Ομηρικῶν τούτων 
ἀκοῦσαι 


5 5 ey , ,ὔ , 
σμερδαλέ » EUPWEVTA, TA TE στύυγεοῦυσι θεοί TTEp 


1 Wyttenbach (after the versions of Xylander and Amyot) ; 
τούτοις ἀσκεῖν -E.; τούτους ἀσκεῖν -B. 


« =§S.V.F. ii, frag. 677. Cf. De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 
1053 a (=S.V.F. ii, frag. 579); Aétius, ii. 17. 4: Strabo, 
i. 1. 9 (c. 6); Cleomedes, i. 6. 33 (p. 60. 21-24 [Ziegler]). 
178 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 940 


animate being of fire many times as large as the 
earth, is nourished by the moisture on the earth, as 
are the rest of the stars too, though they are count- 
less ; so light and frugal of requirements do they 
conceive the creatures to be that inhabit the upper 
region.” We have no comprehension of these beings, 
however, nor of the fact that a different place and 
nature and temperature are suitable to them. Just 
as, assuming that we were unable to approach the 
sea or touch it but only had a view of it from afar and 
the information that it is bitter, unpotable, and salty 
water, if someone said that it supports in its depths 
many large animals of multifarious shapes and _ is 
full of beasts that use water for all the ends that we 
use air, his statements would seem to us like a tissue 
of myths and marvels, such appears to be our relation 
to the moon and our attitude towards her is apparently 
the same when we disbelieve that any men dwell 
there. Those men, I think, would be much more 
amazed at the earth, when they look out at the sedi- 
ment and dregs ὃ of the universe, as it were, obscurely 
visible in moisture, mists, and clouds as a lightless, 
low, and motionless spot, to think that it engenders 
and nourishes animate beings which partake of 
motion, breath, and warmth. If they should chance 
to hear somewhere these Homeric words, 


Dreadful and dank, which even gods abhor ° 


Plutarch, of course, uses Stoic doctrine here against the 
Stoics. 

® Zeno called earth ἐἰλύς and ὑποστάθμη (S.V.F. i, frags. 
104 and 105); but, since the end of this chapter appears to 
have been inspired by Plato’s Phaedo, 109 B-p, the phrase here 
used was probably suggested to Plutarch by Plato’s use of 
ὑποστάθμη there (109 c 2). 

¢ Iliad, xx. 65. 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 
(940) καὶ 


/ ΝΜ > > / 1 - >) ’ὔ ’ > > \ 
TOOOGOV ἔνερθ Atdew OOOV OUpaVvos €OT a7ro 
/ 
γαίης, 


ταῦτα φήσουσιν ἀτεχνῶς περὶ τοῦ χωρίου τούτου 

λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν “Αἰδὴν ἐνταῦθα" καὶ τὸν Τάρταρον 

ἀπῳκίσθαιὑ" γῆν δὲ μίαν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, ἴσον 
ἐκείνων τῶν ἄνω καὶ τῶν κάτω τούτων ἀπέχουσαν." 

26. "Ere δ᾽ ἐμοῦ" σχεδὸν λέγοντος ὁ Σύλλας ὑπο- 

λαβὼν “ “ἐπίσχες " εἶπεν “᾿ ὦ Λαμπρία, καὶ παρα- 

βαλοῦ τὸ θύριον τοῦ Adyou, μὴ λάθῃς τὸν μῦθον 

ὥσπερ εἰς γῆν ἐξοκείλας καὶ συγχέῃς τὸ δρᾶμα τοὐ- 

941 μὸν ἑτέραν ἔχον σκηνὴν καὶ διάθεσιν. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν 

ὑποκριτής εἰμι, πρότερον δ᾽ αὐτοῦ φράσω τὸν ποιη- 


τὴν ἡμῖν" εἰ μή τι κωλύει" καθ᾽ “Ὅμηρον ἀρξάμενον᾽ 
(Ὁ / ~ 5 4 θ 8 > LAL ~ 
γυγίη τις νῆσος ἀπόπροθεν" εἰν ἁλὶ κεῖται 


δρόμον ἡμερῶν πέντε Βρεττανίας ἀπέχουσα πλέοντι 
πρὸς ἑσπέραν. ἕτεραι δὲ τρεῖς ἴσον ἐκείνης ἀφ- 
εστῶσαι καὶ ἀλλήλων πρόκεινται μάλιστα κατὰ 
δυσμὰς ἡλίου θερινάς, ὧν ἐν μιᾷ τὸν Κρόνον ot 
, - ~ ¢ \ ~ / 
βάρβαροι καθεῖρχθαι μυθολογοῦσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, 
τὸν δ᾽ ὠγύγιον (Βριάρεων)" ἔχοντα φρουρὰν" τῶν 


τε νήσων ἐκείνων καὶ τῆς θαλάττης, ἣν Κρόνιον 


Bernardakis ; ’Atéao -F, B. 

Written twice in B. 3 Es ἀποκεῖσθαι -B. 
Bernardakis ; δέ μου -E, B. 

E, B; ὑμῖν -Stephanus (1624). 

E, B!; κωλύοι -B*. 7 E, B; ἀρξάμενος -Hutten,. 
Stephanus (1624) ; ἀπόπροσθεν -E, B. 

‘Le Géant Ogygius ou Briareus’’ -Amyot; τὸν δ᾽ ὡς 
υἱὸν -E, B; τὸν δὲ Βριάρεων -Kaltwasser; τὸν δ᾽ "Oyvyov 
-Apelt (1905). 


180 


ῳὠ ὦ ὦ σι ft τ Ff 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 940-941 


and 
Deep under Hell as far as Earth from Heaven, ? 


these they would say are simply a description of this 
place and Hell and Tartarus have been relegated 
hither while the moon alone is earth, since it is equally 
distant from those upper regions and these lower 
ones. 

26. Almost before I had finished, Sulla broke in. 
“ Hold on, Lamprias,” he said, “ and put to the wicket 
of your discourse ἢ lest you unwittingly run the myth 
aground, as it were, and confound my drama, which 
has a different setting and a different disposition. 
Well, I am but the actor of the piece, but first I shall 
say that its author began for our sake—if there be 
no objection—with a quotation from Homer ° : 


An isle, Ogygia, lies far out at sea,? 


a run of five days off from Britain as you sail west- 
ward ; and three other islands equally distant from 
it and from one another lie out from it in the general 
direction of the summer sunset. In one of these, 
according to the tale told by the natives, Cronus is 
confined by Zeus, and the antique (Briareus), holding 
watch and ward over those islands and the sea that 


@ Iliad, viii. 16. 

> Of. De Sollertia Animalium, 965 B. 

¢ On the text of this sentence cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), 
pp. 148-149. 

4 Odyssey, vii. 244. On the geographical introduction to 
the myth see the Introduction, § 5, and especially Hamilton, 
Class. Quart. xxviii (1934), pp. 15-26, who points out the 
parallel between Plutarch’s geographical scheme and Plato’s 
location of Atlantis in Timaeus, 24 E—25 a. 


10 Kaltwasser (implied by Amyot’s version); φρουρὸν -E, B. 
181 


(941) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


, > 7, / 1 \ \ 
ἢ Τέλαγος ὀνομάζουσι, παρακατῳκίσθαι. ΤΩΣ δὲ 


μεγάλην ἤπειρον, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἡ μεγάλη περιέχεται 
κύκλῳ θάλαττα, τῶν μὲν ἄλλων ἔλαττον ἀπέχειν" 
τῆς δ᾽ ᾿Ωγυγίας περὶ πεντακισχιλίους σταδίους 
κωπήρεσι πλοίοις κομιζομένῳ: βραδύπορον γὰρ 
εἶναι καὶ πηλῶδες ὑπὸ πλήθους ῥευμάτων τὸ πέ- 
λαγος. τὰ δὲ ῥεύματα τὴν μεγάλην ἐξιέναι γῆν 
καὶ γίγνεσθαι προσχώσεις" ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ βαρεῖαν 
εἶναι καὶ γεώδη τὴν θάλατταν, ἣ᾽ καὶ πεπηγέναι 
δόξαν ἔσχε. τῆς δ᾽ ἠπείρου τὰ πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ 
κατοικεῖν “EAAnvas περὶ κόλπον οὐκ ἐλάττονα τῆς 
Μαιώτιδος, οὗ τὸ στόμα τῷ στόματι τοῦ Κασπίου 
πελάγους μάλιστα κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κεῖσθαι, καλεῖν δὲ 
καὶ νομίζειν ἐκείνους ἠπειρώτας μὲν αὑτοὺς" {νη- 


1 Apelt (1905) and implied by Amyot’s version; παρακάτω 


κεῖσθαι -E, B. 2 Basiliensis ; ἀπέχει -E, B 
8 Diibner ; προχώσεις -E, B. 
4 FE, B; 4-Wyttenbach. 5 E; κινεῖσθαι -Β. 


6 Dibner (implied by Amyot’s version) ; αὐτοὺς -E, B. 


« Cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 420 4 avd n the text Class. 
Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 149. For Briareus as a guard set by - 
Zeus over Cronus and the ‘Titans cf. Hesiod, Theogony, 729- 
735 and Apollodorus, i. 7 (=i. 2.1). The pillars of Heracles 
are said to have had the older name Βριάρεω στῆλαι (cf. Aelian, 
Var. Hist. v. 3= Aristotle, frag. 678) and before that Κρόνου 
στῆλαι (cf. Charax, frag. 16= Frag. Hist. Graec. iii, Ὁ. 640) ; 
cf. also Clearchus, frag. 56 (Frag. Hist. Graec. ii, p. 320) and 
Parthenius, frag. 21 (Diehl) =frag. 31 (Martin). 

ὃ Cf. Timaeus 24 πὶ 5—25 a5. 

¢ Plutarch’s language really implies that the way is so 
long—not just that it takes a long time—because the sea is 
hard to traverse ! 

4 Of. Strabo, i. 4. 2 (c. 63): ἦν (i.e. Θούλην) φησι ἸΠυθέας 
. . . ἐγγὺς εἶναι τῆς πεπηγυίας θαλάττης, and Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
iv. 16 (104): “a Tyle unius diei navigatione mare concretum 
a nonnullis Cronium appellatur ”’ (7.6. that for Apollonius 


182 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 941 


they call the Cronian main, has been settled close 
beside him.“ The great mainland, by which the great 
ocean is encircled,? while not so far from the other 
islands, is about five thousand stades from Ogygia, 
the voyage being made by oar, for the main is slow 
to traverse and muddy as a result of the multitud: 
of streams.° The streams are discharged by the greay 
land-mass and produce alluvial deposits, thus giving 
density and earthiness to the sea, which has been 
thought actually to be congealed.? On the coast of 
the mainland Greeks dwell about a gulf which is not 
smaller than the Maeotis ὁ and the mouth of which 
lies roughly on the same parallel as the mouth of the 
Caspian sea.’ These people consider and call them- 
selves continentals (and the) inhabitants of this land 


Rhodius fiv. 327, 509, 546] the Adriatic is the Cronian sea) ; 
cf. Tacitus, Agricola, § 10 and Germania, § 45. Plutarch 
denies that the sea is really congealed as it is reputed to be 
and explains its nature in imitation of Plato (Timaeus, 25 Ὁ 
3-6, Critias, 108 © 6—109 a 2); but, since he cannot adduce 
as the cause of the muddy shallows the “ settling of the island, 
Atlantis, under the sea,”’ he falls back upon alluvial deposits 
from the rivers on the great continent, a notion familiar from 
many sources (cf. De Exilio, 602 p with Thucydides, ii. 102. 
6; Aristotle, Meteorology, 351 Ὁ 28-32; Herodotus, ii. 10; 
Strabo, i. 2. 29-30 [cc. 36-37]). For the “ congealed sea ’ > of. 
further K. Miillenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde, i (1890), pp. 
410-425; E. Janssens, Hist. ancienne dela mer du Nord?(1946), 
pp. 20-22; J.-O: Thomson, Hist. of Ancient Geography, pp. 
148-149, 241, and 54-55 (on Avienus, Ora Maritima, 117-129). 

¢ The Sea of Azoy, the size of which Herodotus had greatly 
exaggerated (iv. 86); Strabo reduced its perimeter to 9000 
stades (ii. 5. 23 [e. 125]). 

7 The Caspian was thought to be a gulf of the outer ocean 
from the time of Alexander until Ptolemy corrected the error 
(Alexander, chap. 44; Strabo, xi. 6. 1 [c. 507]), though 
Herodotus (i. 202-203) and Aristotle ( Meteorology, 354 a 3-4) 
had known that it was connected with no other sea, 


183 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(941) σιώτας δὲ τοὺς ταύτην τὴν γῆν κατοικοῦντας, 
ὡς καὶ κύκλῳ περίρρυτον οὖσαν ὑπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης. 
οἴεσθαι δὲ τοῖς Κρόνου λαοῖς ἀναμιχθέντας ὕστερον 
τοὺς μεθ᾽ “Ηρακλέους παραγενομένους καὶ ὑπο- 
λειφθέντας ἤδη σβεννύμενον τὸ ᾿Ἑλληνικὸν ἐ ἐκεῖ καὶ 
κρατούμενον γλώττῃ τε βαρβαρικῇ καὶ νόμοις καὶ 
διαίταις οἷον ἀναζωπυρῆσαι πάλιν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ πολὺ 
γενόμενον. διὸ τιμὰς ἔχειν πρώτας τὸν Ἡρακλέα 
δευτέρας δὲ τὸν Κρόνον. ὅταν οὖν" ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου 
ἀστήρ, ὃν Φαίνοντα μὲν ἡμεῖς ἐκείνους δὲ Νυ- 
κτοῦρον ἔφη καλεῖν, εἰς Tatpov παραγένηται δι᾽ 
ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, παρασκευασαμένους ἐν χρόνῳ 

Ὁ πολλῷ τὰ περὶ τὴν θυσίαν καὶ τὸν ἀζπόστολον 
θεωροὺς ἱκανοὺς)" ἐκπέμπειν κλήρῳ λαχόντας ἐν 
πλοίοις τοσούτοις θεραπείαν τε πολλὴν καὶ παρα- 
σκευὴν᾽ ἀναγκαίαν μέλλουσι πλεῖν πέλαγος τοσοῦ- 
τον εἰρεσίᾳ καὶ χρόνον ἐπὶ ξένης βιοτεύειν πολὺν 
> ͵ 5 > 7, > = 6 , 
ἐμβαλλομένους. ἀναχθέντας οὖν χρῆσθαι" τύχαις, 
e ees ” » \ \ / > 
ὡς εἰκός, ἄλλους ἄλλαις. τοὺς δὲ διασωθέντας ἐκ 
τῆς θαλάττης πρῶτον μὲν ἐπὶ τὰς προκειμένας 

/ > / > ¢ ot ee / / \ 

νήσους οἰκουμένας δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων Katioxew καὶ 

* νησιώτας δὲ -Basiliensis ; νησιώτας δὲ τοὺς -Wyttenbach ; 
lacking in E and B w ithout sign of lacuna. 

E; ὅταν δὲ -B. 3 H.C. ; τὸν a vac. 23-E, 16-B. 

B; vac. 5 σκευὴν -E. 

Wyttenbach ; ἐμβάλλομεν ods -K, B. 

Xylander ; οὐ χρὴ -E, B. 


aon ὦ 19 





“ Maivwy as the name of the planet Saturn occurs in De 
An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1029 B (acc.: Daivwva); Aétius, ii. 15. 4 
(where mss. vary between Φαίνωνα and Φαίνοντα, cf. Diels, 
Dow. Graeci, p. 344 ad loc.) ; [Aristotle], De Mundo, 392 a 23 
(Φαίνοντος) ; cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 20. 52. There 
is a similar variation in the ss. as between Στίλβοντα and 
Στίλβωνα (cf. Diels, Dow. Graeci, p. 345 on Aétius, ii. 15. 4), 


184 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 941 


(islanders) because the sea flows around it on all 
sides; and they believe that with the peoples of 
Cronus there mingled at a later time those who 
arrived in the train of Heracles and were left behind 
by him and that these latter so to speak rekindled 
again to a strong, high flame the Hellenic spark there 
which was already being quenched and overcome by 
the tongue, the laws, and the manners of the bar- 
barians. Therefore Heracles has the highest honours 
and Cronus the second. Now when at intervals of 
thirty years the star of Cronus, which we call ᾿ Splen- 
dent '* but. they, our author said, call ᾿ Night- 
watchman, enters the sign of the Bull,? they, having 
spent a long time in preparation for the sacrifice and 
the (expedition), choose by lot and send forth (a 
sufficient number of envoys) in a correspondingly 
sufficient number of ships, putting aboard a large 
retinue and the provisions necessary for men who are 
going to cross so much sea by oar and live such a long 
time in a foreign land. Now when they have put to 
sea the several voyagers meet with various fortunes 
as one might expect; but those who survive the 
voyage first put in at the outlying islands, which are 
inhabited by Greeks,® and see the sun pass out of 


though at 925 a supra the mss. of De Facie agree on Στίλ- 
βοντα. 

ὃ Taurus is the sign of the moon’s exaltation (cf. Ptolemy, 
Tetrabiblos, i. 20 [p. 44. 2, Boll-Boer] ; Porphyry, De Antro 
Nymph. 18), and it is for this reason that the expedition be- 
gins when Saturn enters this sign. For the “ thirty years ”’ ef. 
Aétius, ii. 32. 1 (Dox. Graeci, p. 363) : Cleomedes, i. 3. 16-17 
(p. 30. 18-21 [Ziegler]); Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 20. 52. 

‘ These islands lie out westward or north-westward from 
Ogygia, cf. 941 a supra. It has not previously been said that 
they are inhabited by Greeks: in fact, 941 B seems to imply 
that Greeks live only on the mainland. 


185 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(941) τὸν ἥλιον ὁρᾶν κρυπτόμενον ὥρας μιᾶς ἔλαττον ἐφ᾽ 
ἡμέρας τριάκοντα (καὶ νύκτα τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, σκότος 
ἔχουσαν ἐλαφρὸν καὶ λυκαυγὲς ἀπὸ δυσμῶν περι- 
λαμπόμενον). ἐκεῖ δὲ διατρίψαντας ἡμέρας eve- 
νήκοντα, μετὰ τιμῆς καὶ φιλοφροσύνης ἱεροὺς 

E νομιζομένους καὶ προσαγορευομένους, ὑπὸ πνευ- 
μάτων οἵ δεῖ περαιοῦσθαι. μηδ᾽ ἄλλους τινὰς 
ἐνοικεῖν ἢ σφᾶς τ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς πρὸ αὐτῶν 
SR ΤΣ ἐξεῖναι μὲν γὰρ ἀποπλεῖν οἴκαδε 
τοὺς τῷ θεῷ τὰ τρὶς δέκ᾽ ἔτη" συλλατρεύσαντας, 
αἱρεῖσθαι δὲ τοὺς πλείστους ἐπιεικῶς αὐτόθι κατ- 
οικεῖν τοὺς μὲν ὑπὸ συνηθείας τοὺς δ᾽ ὅτι πόνου 
δίχα καὶ πραγμάτων ἀφθονα πάρεστι πάντα πρὸς 
θυσίαις καὶ χορηγίαις ἢ περὶ λόγους τινὰς ἀεὶ καὶ 

Ε φιλοσοφίαν διατρίβουσι. θαυμαστὴν γὰρ εἶναι τῆς 
τε νήσου τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν πραότητα τοῦ περι- 
ἔχοντος ἀέρος. ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ τὸ θεῖον ἐμποδὼν 
γίγνεσθαι διανοηθεῖσιν ἀποπλεῖν ὥσπερ συνήθεσι 
καὶ φίλοις ἐπιδεικνύμενον οὐκ ὄναρ μόνον οὐδὲ διὰ 
συμβόλων, ἀλλὰ καὶ φανερῶς ἐντυγχάνειν πολλοὺς 
ὄψεσι δαιμόνων καὶ φωναῖς. αὐτὸν μὲν γὰρ τὸν 
Κρόνον ἐν ἄντρῳ βαθεῖ περιέχεσθαι πέτρας χρυ- 
σοειδοῦς καθεύδοντα. τὸν γὰρ ὕπνον αὐτῷ με- 
μηχανῆσθαι δεσμὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, ὄρνιθας δὲ τῆς 
πέτρας κατὰ κορυφὴν εἰσπετομένους" ἀμβροσίαν 


1 Ἢ ; ἐνενήκοντα καὶ μετὰ -Β. 
2 Bernardakis ; ἤδη -Εἰ, B. 
3 Bernardakis ; τῷ τρισκαιδεκάτῳ -E, B. 
4 Turnebus ; οἱ -E, B. 
5 Madvig ; ods πετομένους -K, B. 





α | have tried to preserve the ambiguity | of Plutarch’s 
language, though he probably meant to say “ less than an 


186 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 941 


sight for less than an hour over a period of thirty 
days,*—and this is night, though it has a darkness 
that is slight and twilight glimmering from the west. 
There they spend ninety days regarded with honour 
and friendliness as holy men and so addressed, and 
then winds carry them across to their appointed goal.? 
Nor do any others inhabit it but themselves and those 
who have been dispatched before them, for, while 
those who have served the god together for the stint 
of thirty years are allowed to sail off home, most of 
them usually choose to settle in the spot, some out 
of habit and others because without toil or trouble 
they have all things in abundance while they con- 
stantly employ their time in sacrifices and celebra- 
tions or with various discourse and philosophy, for 
the nature of the island is marvellous as is the soft- 
ness of the circumambient air. Some when they 
intend to sail away are even hindered by the divinity 
which presents itself to them as to intimates and 
friends not in dreams only or by means of omens, 
but many also come upon the visions and the voices 
of spirits manifest. For Cronus himself sleeps con- 
fined in a deep cave of rock that shines like gold— 
the sleep that Zeus has contrived as a bond for him—, 
and birds flying in over the summit of the rock bring 


hour each day for thirty days ”’ (so Kepler understood, who 
thought that the reference was to Greenland). For the length 
of summer-days in Britain and in Thule cf. Cleomedes, i. 7. 
37-38 (pp. 68. 6-70. 22 [Ziegler]) and Pytheas and Crates in 
Geminus, vi. 9-21 (pp. 70-76 [Manitius]). Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
iv. 16 (104) says that in Thule at the summer solstice there is 
no night at all, 1.6. while the sun is in Cancer; but he adds 
here, what he had before (ii. 75 [186-187]) ascribed to Pytheas, 
that some think that in Thule there is a continuous day of 
six months’ duration. 
ὃ Cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 149 and note 91. 


187 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(941) ἐπιφέρειν αὐτῷ, καὶ τὴν νῆσον εὐωδίᾳ κατέχεσθαι 
942 πᾶσαν ὥσπερ ἐκ πηγῆς σκιδναμένῃ τῆς πέτρας. 
τοὺς δὲ δαίμονας ἐκείνους περιέπειν καὶ , θεραπεύειν 
τὸν Κρόνον, ἑταίρους αὐτῷ γενομένους ὅτε δὴ θεῶν 
καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐβασίλευσε,' καὶ πολλὰ μὲν ap’ 
ἑαυτῶν μαντικοὺς ὄντας προλέγειν τὰ δὲ μέγιστα 
καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων ὡς ὀνείρατα τοῦ Κρόνου 
κατιόντας ἐξαγγέλλειν"" ὅσα γὰρ ὁ Ζεὺς προδια- 
νοεῖται" ταῦτ᾽ ὀνειροπολεῖν τὸν Κρόνον, εἶναι δ᾽ 
ἀνάτασιν τὰ τιτανικὰ πάθη καὶ κινήματα τῆς 
ψυχῆς <ews) ἂν" αὐτῷ πάλιν ἀνάπαυσιν" ὁ ὕπνος 
(καταστήσῃ)" καὶ γένηται τὸ βασιλικὸν καὶ θεῖον 
Β αὐτὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀκήρατον. ἐνταῦθα 
δὴ κομισθείς, ὡς ἔλεγεν, ὁ E€vos καὶ θεραπεύων 
τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ σχολῆς ἀστρολογίας μὲν ἐφ᾽ ὅσον 
{γεν " γεωμετρήσαντι πορρωτάτω προελθεῖν δυνατόν 
1 FE, B; ἐβασίλευε -Emperius. 
2 E; ἐξαγγέλειν -B. 
2 Us προσδιανοεῖται -Β. 
4. Ὁ: : ἀνάστασιν “ἘΝ B. 
5 After prices 5 ψυχῆς (ἕως av) ev; ψυχῆς ἐν -E, B. 


C.; Ἢ παντάπασιν - 
7 H.C. : ὁ ὕπνος vac. 10- E, 13- B. 
8 H.C.; ὅσον vac. 2-F, 3-B. 


2 For the sleep of Cronus as his bonds and for the spirits 
who are his servitors cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 420 a. For 
the sleeping Cronus cf. also Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, 
frags. 149 and 155; in these “᾿ Orphic”’ or Neo-Platonic 
passages, however, Cronus prophesies, furnishes Zeus with 
plans, or thinks the world order before Zeus is aware of it 
(cf. Damascius, Dub. et Sol. 305 v-306 r [ii, pp. 136. 19-137. 8, 
Ruelle] and Proclus, In Cratylum, p. 53. 29 ff. [Pasquali]), 
which is the opposite of what Plutarch’s words imply. Be- 
cause of Tertullian, De Anima, 46. 10 (f. 156) J. H. Waszink 
(Tertullian, De Anima, p. 496) thinks it certain that the 
ultimate source of the story was one of Aristotle’s lost 


188 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 941-942 


ambrosia to him, and all the island is suffused with 
fragrance scattered from the rock as from a fountain ; 
and those spirits mentioned before tend and serve 
Cronus, having been his comrades what time he ruled 
as king over gods and men. Many things they do 
foretell of themselves, for they are oracular ; but 
the prophecies that are greatest and of the greatest 
matters they come down and report as dreams of 
Cronus, for all that Zeus premeditates Cronus sees 
in his dreams ” and the titanic affections and motions 
of his soul make him rigidly tense (until) sleep 
(restores) his repose once more and the royal and 
divine element is all by itself, pure and unalloyed.? 
Here then the stranger ° was conveyed, as he said, 
and while he served the god became at his leisure 
acquainted with astronomy, in which he made as 
much progress as one can by practising geometry, 


dialogues. Pohlenz (1... xi. 2013. s.v. “ Kronos ’’) sup- 
poses that Plutarch’s source was Posidonius and that Posi- 
donius was inspired by Nordic legend ! 

The feature of the birds that bring Cronus ambrosia appears 
to have been adapted from the story of Zeus’s nectar; cf. 
Sept. Sap. 156 τ and Odyssey, xii. 63-65. 

Besides J. H. Waszink (Tertullian, De Anima, p. 496) see 
the same author’s articles in Vigiliae Christianae, i (1947), 
pp. 137-149 (especially pp. 145-149) and in Mélanges Henri 
Grégoire, ii (1950), pp. 639-653 (especially pp. 651-653). 
Waszink mistakenly believes that in Plutarch’s story “ἡ special 
demons convey to Zeus [the thoughts that arise in Cronus’s 
dreams] who makes use of them for his government of the uni- 
verse,’ and consequently he overlooks the important difference 
between Plutarch’s version and the “ἡ Orphic”’ passages that 
I have pointed out in this note. 

» Cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 149-150. 

° This is the first mention of “‘ the stranger,’’ unless he 
was referred to in the lost beginning of the dialogue. Hitherto 
he has merely been implied by the indirect discourse and τὸν 
ποιητήν in 941 a supra; cf. the reference in note c there. 


189 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> > / ” ,ὔ \ ~ »Μ ~ 
(942) ἐστιν ἐμπειρίαν ἔσχε φιλοσοφίας δὲ τῆς ἄλλης τῷ 
κι. / 
φυσικῷ χρώμενος. ἐπιθυμίαν δέ twa καὶ πόθον 
~ / ul 
ἔχων γενέσθαι τῆς μεγάλης νήσου θεατής (ovTws" 
γὰρ ὡς ἔοικε τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν οἰκουμένην ὀνομά- 
> \2 \ , 5 - > 
Covow), ἐπειδὴ" τὰ τριάκοντ᾽ ἔτη διῆλθεν ἀφικο- 
~ / 
μένων τῶν διαδόχων οἴκοθεν ἀσπασάμενος" τοὺς 
/ > / \ \ »Μ / 
φίλους ἐξέπλευσε, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα κατεσκευασμένος 
> ma 4 > / \ \ » 5 ~ > / 
εὐσταλῶς" ἐφόδιον δὲ συχνὸν Ev” χρυσοῖς ἐκπώμασι 
κομίζων. ἃ μὲν οὖν ἔπαθε καὶ ὅσους ἀνθρώπους 
~ A / ᾽ 
C διῆλθεν, ἱεροῖς τε γράμμασιν ἐντυγχάνων ev τελε- 
ταῖς τε πάσαις τελούμενος, οὐ μιᾶς ἡμέρας ἔργον 
. \ A ¢ , A ¢ A > / Ss / 
ἐστὶ διελθεῖν ws ἐκεῖνος ἡμῖν ἀπήγγελλεν εὖ μάλα 
καὶ Kal? ἕκαστον ἀπομνημονεύων, ὅσα δ᾽ οἰκεῖα 
~ ~ / - 
τῆς ἐνεστώσης διατριβῆς ἐστιν ἀκούσατε. πλεῖστον 
\ >) / / ¥ “ ᾿ > 
yap ev Καρχηδόνι χρόνον διέτριψεν ἅτε δὴ παρ 
- ~ / / 
ἡμῖν μεγάλας ἔχοντος {τοῦ Κρόνου τιμάς, καί 
“fy? ¢€ / / > / / «ς \ 
τινας ὅθ᾽ ἡ προτέρα πόλις ἀπώλλυτο διφθέρας ἱερὰς 
¢ / / \ / \ 
ὑπεκκομισθείσας κρύφα καὶ διαλαθούσας πολὺν 
χρόνον ἐν γῇ κειμένας ἐξεῦρεν" τῶν τε φαινο- 
μένων θεῶν ἔφη χρῆναι καί μοι παρεκελεύετο τιμᾶν 
/ ~ 
διαφερόντως τὴν σελήνην ws τοῦ βίου κυριωτάτην 
Meas ay 
Madyvig:: ere). δὲ ἫΝ B. 
E ; ἀσπασαμένους -B. 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; εὐσταθῶς -E, B. 
E ; omitted in B. 
E ; τε omitted in B. 
Emperius; μεγάλας ἔχοντος καὶ τινάς -E, B, Aldine ; 
μεγάλης ἔχοντος καὶ τιμάς -Basiliensis ; μεγάλάς ἔχοντος {τοῦ 
Κρόνου) τιμάς: καὶ -Wyttenbach. 
8 Adler; ἐξευρεῖν -E, B; ἐξευρών -Basiliensis. 


sy nn fF ὦ WS μὲ 


α φιλοσοφίας... χρώμενος is highly condensed ; it must 
190 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 942 


and with the rest of philosophy by dealing with so 
much of it as is possible for the natural philosopher.? 
Since he had a strange desire and longing to observe 
the Great Island (for so, it seems, they call our part 
of the world), when the thirty years had elapsed, the 
relief-party having arrived from home, he saluted 
his friends and sailed away, lightly equipped for the 
rest but carrying a large viaticum in golden beakers. 
Well, all his experiences and all the men whom he 
visited, encountering sacred writings and being 
initiated in all rites—to recount all this as he reported 
it to us, relating it thoroughly and in detail, is not a 
task for a single day ; but listen to so much as is 
pertinent to the present discussion. He spent a great 
deal of time in Carthage inasmuch as (Cronus) re- 
ceives great (honour) in our country,’ and he dis- 
covered certain sacred parchments that had been 
secretly spirited off to safety when the earlier city 
was being destroyed and had lain unnoticed in the 
ground for a long time.° Among the visible gods 4 
he said that one should especially honour the moon, 
and so he kept exhorting me to do, inasmuch as she 


be construed : φιλοσοφίας δὲ τῆς ἄλλης (ἐμπειρίαν ἔσχε), 
χρώμενος (αὐτῇ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον) τῷ φυσικῷ (δυνατόν ἐστιν). For the 
distinction between ἀστρολογία and φυσική here referred to cf. 
Geminus’s quotation of Posidonius in Simplicius, Physica, 
pp. 291. 23-292. 9 (Diels). 

ὃ For the special position of Cronus at Carthage cf. De 
Superstitione, 171 c, De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 552 a; 
Diodorus, v. 66. 5. 

¢ Nothing in the subsequent account supports the fre- 
quently expressed notion that the myth is supposed to have 
been discovered in these parchments, and 945 p infra ex- 
pressly invalidates any such assumption. 

4 Cf. Timaeus, 40 ἢ (τὰ περὶ θεῶν ὁρατῶν). 41 A (ὅσοι περι- 
πολοῦσιν φανερῶς. .. θεοί): Epinomis, 985 D (τοὺς ὄντως 
ἡμῖν φανεροὺς ὄντας θεούς). 


191 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(942) οὖσαν (καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, τῶν “Atdov λειμώνων" 
ἐχομένην. 
27. Θαυμάζοντος δ᾽ ἐμοῦ" ταῦτα καὶ δεομένου 
D σαφέστερον ἀκοῦσαι ᾿πολλὰ᾿᾿ εἶπεν" ᾿ ὦ Σύλλα 
περὶ θεῶν οὐ πάντα δὲ καλῶς λέγεται παρ᾽ ἽἙλλη- 
σιν. οἷον εὐθὺς ὀρθῶς Δήμητραν" καὶ Κόρην ὀνο- 
μάζοντες οὐκ ὀρθῶς ὁμοῦ καὶ περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν 
ἀμφοτέρας εἶναι τόπον νομίζουσιν: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐν γῇ 
καὶ κυρία τῶν περὶ γῆν ἐστιν ἡ δ᾽ ἐν σελήνῃ καὶ 
τῶν περὶ σελήνην." Κόρη τε καὶ Φερσεφόνη" 
κέκληται. τὸ μὲν ὡς φωσφόρος" οὖσα Κόρη δ᾽ ὅτι 
καὶ τοῦ ὄμματος ἐν ᾧ τὸ εἴδωλον ἀντιλάμπει τοῦ 
βλέποντος ὥσπερ τὸ ἡλίου φέγγος ἐνορᾶται τῇ 
σελήνῃ κόρην προσαγορεύομεν. τοῖς τε περὶ τὴν 
E πλάνην καὶ τὴν ζήτησιν αὐτῶν λεγομένοις ἔνεστιν 


1 H.C. (cf. 942 τ, 943 c infra; De Genio Socratis, 591 
A-C); οὖσαν vac. 31-E, 24-B. 

2 Bernardakis ; δέ μου -E, B. 

8 Stephanus (1624) ; εἰπεῖν -E, B, Aldine, Basiliensis. 

4 KE, Β (so mss. at De Iside, 367 c, De su Carn. 994 a, Adv. 
Coloten, 1119 ©; cf. Allen and Sikes, The Homeric Hymns, 
note on the title of Hymn [1]. 

5 Es περὶ τὴν σελήνην -B. 

6 Diibner (cf. 943 B infra) ; περσεφόνη -E, B. 

7 E; φοσφόρος -B. 


« Here Sulla begins to quote the stranger directly and 
continues his direct quotation to the end of the myth in 945 p. 

» For identification of Persephoné and the moon cf. Epi- 
charmus, frag. B 54 (i, p. 207. 9-11 [Diels-Kranz]=Ennius 
in Varro, De Lingua Latina, v.68); Porphyry, De Antro 
Nymph. 18; lamblichus in John Laurentius Lydus, De 
Mensibus, iv. 149 ; Martianus Capella, ii. 161-162. Plutarch 
in De Iside, 372 τὸ notices the identification of Isis and the 
meon and in 361 & that of Isis and Persephassa (cf. note ¢ 
on 922 a supra for Athena). ‘The Pythagoreans are said to 
have called the planets ‘‘ the hounds of Persephoné ”’ (Por- 


192 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 942 


is sovereign over life (and death), bordering as she 
does (upon the meads of Hades). 

27. When I expressed surprise at this and asked 
for a clearer account, he said@: ᾿ Many assertions 
about the gods, Sulla, are current among the Greeks, 
but not all of them are right. So, for example, 
although they give the right names to Demeter and 
Cora, they are wrong in believing that both are 
together in the same region. The fact is that the 
former is in the region of earth and is sovereign over 
terrestrial things, and the latter is in the moon and 
mistress of lunar things. She has been called both 
Cora and Phersephoné,’ the latter as being a bearer 
of light ὁ and Cora because that is what we call the 
part of the eye in which is reflected the likeness of 
him who looks into it ὦ as the light of the sun is seen 
in the moon. The tales told of the wandering and 
the quest of these goddesses contain the truth 
phyry, Vita Pythag. 41=Aristotle, frag. 196; Clement, 
Stromat. v. 50 [676 p, 244 s]); and Plutarch in De Defectu 
Oraculorum, 416 © refers to some who call the moon χθονίας 
ὁμοῦ καὶ οὐρανίας κλῆρον “Exarns (cf. De Iside, 368 ©). Cf. 
further, Roscher, Uber Selene und Verwandtes, pp. 119 ff. 

¢ Cf. for the ancient etymologies of Φερσεφόνη Brauninger, 
R.E. xix. 1. 946-947, and Roscher, Lexicon, ii. 1288; there 
seems to be no ancient parallel to the one given here, to which 
Plutarch does not refer in De /side, 377 ὃ. where he mentions 
the etymology proposed by Cleanthes. In the Orphic Hymn 
to Persephoné (xxix. 9= Orphica, rec. E. Abel, p. 74. 9) the 
epithet, daecdopos, is used of the goddess but not by way of 
etymology (cf. line 16); nor is she expressly identified with 
the moon, although she is called φαεσφόρος, ayAadpopde, . . « 
εὐφεγγές, κερόεσσα. 

4 Cf. [Plato], Alcibiades I, 133 a. The word κόρη means 
** girl,” “ἢ maiden,” for which reason it was used of such god- 
desses as Athena and Persephoné, and also “ doll,’? whence 
like Latin ‘‘ pupilla ᾿ it came to mean the pupil of the eye; 
cf. English “ the baby in the eye.”’ 


VOR, ΧΠ H 193 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(942) (ἠνιγμένον. TO" ἀληθές: ἀλλήλων γὰρ ἐφίενται 
χωρὶς οὖσαι καὶ συμπλέκονται περὶ τὴν σκιὰν πολ- 
λάκις. τὸ δὲ νῦν" μὲν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ φωτὶ νῦν δ᾽ ἐν 
σκότῳ καὶ νυκτὶ γενέσθαι περὶ τὴν Κόρην ψεῦδος 
μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, τοῦ δὲ χρόνουΣ" τῷ ἀριθμῷ πλάνην 
παρέσχηκεν. οὐ γὰρ ἕξ μῆνας ἀλλὰ παρ᾽ ἐξ μῆνας 
ὁρῶμεν αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς 
τῇ σκιᾷ λαμβανομένην ὀλιγάκις δὲ τοῦτο διὰ πέντε 

F μηνῶν πάσχουσαν, * ἐπεὶ τόν γ᾽ “Αἰδην ἀπολιπεῖν 
ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν αὐτὴν τοῦ “Αἰδου πέρζας)" οὖσαν, 
ὥσπερ καὶ “Ὅμηρος ἐπικρυψάμενος οὐ φαύλως 
τοῦτ᾽ εἶπεν 


ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ᾿Ηλύσιον πεδίον καὶ πείρατα γαίης" 


a a b] 
ὅπου yap ἡ σκιὰ τῆς γῆς ἐπινεμομένη παύεται 
~ ~ ~ \ 2 ~ 
τοῦτο τέρμα THs γῆς ἔθετο Kal πέρας. εἰς δὲ τοῦτο 
~ \ > \ 9.9 3 / ΝΜ « \ 
φαῦλος μὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἀκάθαρτος ἄνεισιν, ot δὲ 


1 Η.(.; ἔνεστιν vac. ἤ-Εὶ ; ἔνεστι vac. 9-B. 

2 Basiliensis ; ὃ δὲ νῦν -E, B. 

3 Raingeard ; οὐδὲ χρόνου -K, B; ὁ δὲ χρόνος -Anon., 
Aldine, R.J. 94. 

4 Wyttenbach ; παροῦσαν -E, B; παθοῦσαν -Kaltwasser. 

® Stephanus (1624) ; ézi-E (at end of line with 2 or 3 letter- 
spaces possibly vacant after it), B (no lacuna). 

ὁ 'Turnebus ; περ οὖσαν -E, B. 


« i.e. the wandering of Demeter in search of Persephoné 
after the abduction of the latter by Hades: cf. e.g. the 
Homeric Hymn 11 to Demeter and Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 
i. 5. In the myth, however, Demeter was the wanderer; but 
the earth, which she is here supposed to represent, is stationary. 
In the myth Persephoné is in darkness when she is separated 
from her mother and with Hades, whereas Plutarch’s inter- 
pretation requires that Persephoné, the moon, be in darkness 
and night when she is in the embrace of her mother, the earth. 

» Cf. 933 πὶ supra and De Genio Socratis, 591 c: σελήνη 

. φεύγει τὴν Στύγα μικρὸν ὑπερφέρουσα λαμβάνεται δ᾽ ἅπαξ ἐν 


104 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 942 


(spoken covertly),¢ for they long for each other when 
they are apart and they often embrace in the shadow. 
The statement concerning Cora that now she is in 
the light of heaven and now in darkness and night 
is not false but has given rise to error in the com- 
putation of the time, for not throughout six months 
but every six months we see her being wrapped in 
shadow by the earth as it were by her mother, and 
infrequently we see this happen to her at intervals 
of five months,” for she cannot abandon Hades since 
she is the boundary of Hades, as Homer too has 
rather well put it in veiled terms : 


But to Elysium’s plain, the bourne of earth. ° 


Where the range of the earth’s shadow ends, this he 
set as the term and boundary of the earth.? To this 
point rises no one who is evil or unclean, but the good 


μέτροις δευτέροις ἑκατὸν ἑβδομήκοντα ἑπτά (177 days=one-half 
of a lunar year, 6 synodic months). 

© Odyssey, iv. 563 but with ἀλλά σ᾽ és instead of ἀλλ᾽ εἰς. 

4 Of. Stobaeus, Eclogag, i. 49 (i, p. 448. 5-16 [Wachsmuth]) 
=frag. 146 β (vii, p. 176 [Bernardakis]), where Odyssey, iv. 
563-564 is taken to indicate that the region of the moon is the 
seat of righteous souls after death (cf. Eustathius, dd Odys- 
seam, 1509. 18). There Ἠλύσιον πεδίον is said to mean the 
surface of the moon lighted by the sun (cf. 944 c infra) and 
πείρατα γαίης the end of the earth’s shadow which often 
touches the moon; but there is no mention of Hades, Perse- 
phoné, or Demeter. In the present passage Plutarch does 
not say why his interpretation of Homer’s line justifies him 
in calling the moon τοῦ “Acdov πέρας. but the rest of the myth 
makes it certain that Hades is the region between earth and 
moon (cf. 943 c infra). This agrees with the myth of De 
Genio Socratis, where (591 a-c) this region is “‘ the portion o. 
Persephoné ’’ and the earth’s shadow is “* Styx ’’ and “ the 
road to Hades’ and where (590 r) Hades and Earth are 
clearly identical (cf. Heinze, Xenokrates, p. 185; R. M. 
Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, p. 57 and n. 147). Prob- 
ably then Plutarch here thought that, if Homer could be 


195 


(942) 


943 € 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


χρηστοὶ μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν κομισθέντες αὐτόθι 
\ 
ῥᾷστον μὲν οὕτως" βίον οὐ μὴν μακάριον οὐδὲ θεῖον 
iden ἄχρι τοῦ δευτέρου θανάτου διατελοῦσι. 
Tis δ᾽ οὗτός ἐστιν, ὦ Σύλλα; μὴ περὶ τούτων 
/ \ > \ ~ 4 Μ 
Lon, μέλλω yap αὐτὸς διηγεῖσθαι. τὸν ἄνθρωπον 
¢ \ / \ > ~ >? πω \ / 3 
ot πολλοὶ σύνθετον μὲν ὀρθῶς ἐκ δυεῖν" δὲ μόνον 
σύνθετον οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἡγοῦνται. μόριον γὰρ εἶναί 
πως ψυχῆς οἴονται τὸν νοῦν, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκείνων 
ἁμαρτάνοντες οἷς ἡ ψυχὴ δοκεῖ μόριον εἶναι τοῦ 
σώματος: νοῦς γὰρ ψυχῆς ὅσῳ ψυχὴ σώματος 
ἄμεινόν ἐστι καὶ θειότερον. ποιεῖ δ᾽ ἡ μὲν ψυχῆς 
(Kal σώματος μῖξις τὸ ἄλογον καὶ τὸ παθητικὸν ἡ ἡ 
δὲ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς" σύνοδος λόγον, ὧν τὸ μὲν ἡδονῆς 
> \ \ ~ ~ 
ἀρχὴ Kal πόνου TO δ᾽ ἀρετῆς Kal κακίας. τριῶν 


1 E; οὕτω -B. 

2 Bernardakis ; δυοῖν -Εἰ, B. 
3B; μόνων -E. 

4 


Bernardakis (cf. 943 p infra) ; ἡ μὲν ψυχῆς σύνοδος -E, B ; 
‘et fait ceste composition de l’'ame avec l’entendement la 
raison, et avec le corps la passion . . .”’ -Amyot. 


shown to have set the boundary of earth at the moon, it 
follows that he understood the moon to be the boundary of 
Hades. In De Genio Socratis, 591 8 the moon is expressly 
made the boundary between ‘‘ the portion of Persephoné,”’ 
which is Hades, and the region which extends from moon to 
sun. Nevertheless, in 944 c infra the Elysian plain is said 
to be the part of the moon that is turned to heaven, 1.6. away 
from the earth; and, though this,does not explicitly con- 
tradict the present passage, it might still seem to eit the 
notion ascribed to Iamblichus by John Laurentius Lydus 
(De Mensibus, iv. 149 [p. 167. 24 ff.]) : Sea τὸν ὑπὲρ σελήνης 
ἄχρις ἡλίου χῶρον τῷ “Ady διδούς, παρ᾽ ᾧ φησὶ καὶ τὰς ἐκκεκαθαρ- 
μένας ἑστάναι ψυχάς, καὶ αὐτὸν μὲν elva τὸν Πλούτωνα, Τ]ερσε- 
φόνην δὲ τὴν σελήνην. 
α Cf. Odyssey, iv. 565: τῇ περ ῥηίστη βιοτὴ πέλει ἀνθρώποισιν. 
ὃ In Quaest. Rom. 282 a Plutarch cites Castor (οὐ 966 Ε) 


196 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 942-943 


are conveyed thither after death and there continue 
to lead a life most easy to be sure? though not 
blesséd or divine until their second death.? 

28. And what is this, Sulla? Do not ask about 
these things, for I am going to give a full explanation 
myself. Most people rightly hold man to be com- 
posite but wrongly hold him to be composed of only 
two parts. The reason is that they suppose mind 
to be somehow part of soul, thus erring no less than 
those who believe soul to be part of body, for in the 
same degree as soul is superior to body so is mind 
better and more divine than soul. The result of soul 
<and body commingled is the irrational or the affective 
factor, whereas of mind and soul) the conjunction 
produces reason ; and of these the former is source 
of pleasure and pain, the latter of virtue and vice.° 


for the notion that after death souls dwell on the moon, for 
which cf. in general P. Capelle, De luna stellis lacteo orbe 
animarum sedibus (Halis Saxonum, 1917), pp. 1-18 and v.06. 
Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. 18. 82; Varro in Augustine, De Civ. 
Det, vii. Ὁ (i, p. 282. 14-17 [Dombart]); S.V.F. ii, frag. 
814. 
¢ Cf. De Virtute Morali, 441 p—442 a, De Genio Socratis, 
591 p-r. The ultimate source of Plutarch’s conception of the 
relation of mind, soul, and body is such passages of Plato as 
Timaeus, 30 B, 41-42, 90 a; Laws, 961 p-£, Phaedrus, 247 ς 
(cf. Thévenaz, L’ Ame du monde... chez Plutarque, pp. 
70-73). Plutarch himself ascribes the twofold division, soul 
and body, to οὗ πολλοί and so cannot intend a reference to any 
philosophical school ; by those who make soul a μόριον τοῦ 
σώματος he might mean Stoics (cf. De Stoicorum Repug- 
nantiis, 1052 ¥ ff., De Communibus Notitiis, 1083 c ff.) but 
might equally well mean Epicureans or materialists gener- 
ally. Against Adler’s argument (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, pp. 
171-172) that the first of the two notions rejected is Platonic 
and the second Stoic, so that Plutarch’s source must have 
been Posidonius, cf. Pohlenz, Phil. Woch. xxxii (1912), Ὁ. 653, 
and R. M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, p. 55. 
197 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ / / \ \ A e ΄- \ \ 
(943) δὲ τούτων συμπαγέντων TO μὲν σῶμα ἡ γῆ τὴν δὲ 
ψυχὴν ἡ σελήνη τὸν δὲ νοῦν ὁ ἥλιος παρέσχεν εἰς 
\ , > / 1e¢ > A\2 = 
τὴν γένεσιν <tavOpwm7w)' ὥσπερ avd (TH) TH σε- 
A / \ / «Δ δ᾽ 3 7 / « 
ἤνῃ τὸ φέγγος. ὃν δ᾽ ἀποθνήσκομεν θάνατον, ὁ 
\ > a / ~ \ » « > Δ > 
μὲν ἐκ τριῶν δύο ποιεῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὁ δ᾽ ἕν ἐκ 
Β δυεῖν, καὶ ὁ μέν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ {γῆ τῆς Δήμητρος 
\ ~ / \ / 5 3 ~ A \ 
{((διὸ τελευτᾶν λέγεται τὸν Bidov® αὐτῇ τελεῖν καὶ 
\ \ > A / ᾿ ’ \ 
τοὺς νεκροὺς ᾿Αθηναῖοι Δημητρείους ὠνόμαζον τὸ 
παλαιόν) (ὃ )" δ᾽ ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ τῆς Φερσεφόνης, 
καὶ σύνοικός ἐστι τῆς μὲν χθόνιος ὁ “Ἑρμῆς τῆς δ᾽ 
4 1 ἢ }» , > δ 8 \ \ \ \ ῃ 
οὐράνιος. λύει δ᾽ αὕτη" μὲν ταχὺ καὶ μετὰ βίας 
\ \ > \ ~ / ε \ / / 
τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ἡ δὲ Φερσεφόνη πράως 
καὶ χρόνῳ πολλῷ τὸν νοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ διὰ 
τοῦτο μονογενὴς κέκληται" μόνον" γὰρ γίγνεται τὸ 
, > ᾽ , € \10 ae 
βέλτιστον τἀνθρώπου διακρινόμενον {ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς. 
C συντυγχάνει δ᾽ οὕτως κατὰ φύσιν ἑκάτερον: πᾶσαν 
Bernardakis ; γένεσιν vac. 7-E, 11-B. 
Raingeard ; ὥς περ αὖ -E; ὥς περ οὖν -B. 
Bernardakis ; δυοῖν -E, B. 
Madvig : ἐν τῇ τῆς -E, B. 
Η. C.; Δήμητρος vac. 20-E, 26-B ἐν. 
Kaltwasser ; τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ ἐν -E, B. 
ΕΠ. B; περσεφόνης -E?. 
Bernardakis ; αὐτὴ -F, B. 
Stephanus (1624) ; μόνη -E, B; possibly μόνῃ (ef. L and 


S, s.v. povos, B IV). 
10 Stephanus (1624) ; διακρινόμενον αὐτῆς -E, B. 


oo nan ovr ὁ N fF 





« Cf. De Genio Socratis, 591 8, where motion and genera- 
tion are linked by Mind in the sun and generation and de- 
struction by Nature in the moon. 

» For a ‘‘ mortal soul” or “ mortal part ” of the soul ef. 
Plato, Timaeus, 42 Ὁ, 61 c, 69 c-b. 


198 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 943 


In the composition of these three factors earth 
furnishes the body, the moon the soul, and the sun 
furnishes mind (to man) for the purpose of his genera- 
tion * even as it furnishes light to the moon herself. 
As to the death we die, one death reduces man from 
three factors to two and another reduces him from 
two to one ®; and the former takes place in the 
<earth) that belongs to Demeter <((wherefore “ to 
make an end ”’ is called) “ to render (one’s life) to 
her’ and Athenians used in olden times to call the 
dead “᾿ Demetrians ’’),° (the latter) in the moon that 
belongs to Phersephoné, and associated with the 
former is Hermes the terrestrial, with the latter 
Hermes the celestial.¢ While the goddess here ° 
dissociates the soul from the body swiftly and 
violently, Phersephoné gently and by slow degrees 
detaches the mind from the soul and has therefore 
been called “ single-born ” because the best part 
of man is “ born single ’’ when separated off (by) her.’ 
Each of the two separations naturally occurs in this 


CxCf Class. Phit-sxivi- (1951), p. Fo. 

4 Cf. De Iside, 367 Ὁ-Ὲ. Hermes appears in the myth 
of Persephoné as early as Homeric Hymn IT, 377 ff. and is 
connected with Hecaté in the fragment of Theopompus in 
Porphyry, De Abstinentia, ii. 16. Cf. also Quaest. Graec. 
296 τ and Halliday’s note ad loc. 

¢ 7,6. on earth, Demeter, which is why Plutarch refers to 
her with αὕτη. though she is the former of the two mentioned. 

7 μονογενής, Which appears as an epithet of Hecaté and 
Persephoné (cf. Hesiod, Theogony, 426; Orphic Hymns, 
xxix. 1-2 [Abel]; Apollonius Rhodius, iii. 847), means 
““unique’”’: cf. Timaeus, 31 B and 92 c, to which Plutarch 
refers in De Defectu Oraculorum, 423 a and c, where he inter- 
prets the word to mean “ only born.’ Here, however, he 
probably takes the final element in an active sense such as 
it has in Καλλιγένεια, an epithet of Demeter, the moon, and 
the earth. 


199 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ Μ \ \ A / >? A 
(943) ψυχήν, ἄνουν τε Kal σὺν VW, σώματος ἐκπεσοῦσαν 
ς , Δ} TT, mz \ a \ , 
εἱμαρμένον ἐστὶν (ev) τῷ μεταξὺ γῆς Kat σελήνης 
/ 2 ~ 
χωρίῳ" πλανηθῆναι χρόνον οὐκ ἴσον, ἀλλ᾽ at μὲν 
Μ \ > / / ~ > / / 
ἄδικοι καὶ ἀκόλαστοι δίκας τῶν ἀδικημάτων τί- 
\ > > A LA > ~ \ > 
νουσι Tas δ᾽ ἐπιεικεῖς ὅσον ἀφαγνεῦσαι Kal ἀπο- 
~ \ 3 > \ ~ / a > a4 
πνεῦσαι {τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ὥσπερ ἀτμοῦ 
~ \ ~ ~ 
πονηροῦ μιασμοὺς ἐν τῷ πραοτάτῳ TOD ἀέρος, ὃν 
΄“-“ 7 “ A 
λειμῶνας “Avdov καλοῦσι, δεῖ γίγνεσθαι χρόνον τινὰ 
/ ᾿ ? 
τεταγμένον. (εἶθ᾽ 5 οἷον ἐξ ἀποδημίας ἀνακομι- 
,ὔ aA > / , A ” 6 
Copevar φυγαδικῆς εἰς πατρίδα γεύονται χαρᾶς οἵαν 
¢ / / Ψ \ / 
ot τελούμενοι μάλιστα θορύβῳ καὶ πτοήσει συγ- 


1 Wyttenbach ; ἐστὶ τῷ μεταξὺ -Ε, B. 
2 E, B; χώρῳ -Papabasileios. 
3 Emperius ; ἀποπνεῦσαι ἀπὸ -E, Β. 
4 Emperius ; αἰτίου -E, B. 
5 Basiliensis (εἶτα) ; omitted by Εἰ, B. 
6 Editors after οἷαν (sic) of Basiliensis ; οἷον -E, B. 


α This may mean only ‘“‘ whether the soul has been obedient 
to reason in life or has not but ὅλη κατέδυ εἰς σῶμα. as De 
Genio Socratis, 591 Ὁ-Ὲ puts it; but at 945 B infra Plutarch 
speaks of souls which ἄνευ vod assume bodies and live on 
earth, and by ἄνουν here he may intend to refer to the separa- 
tion of such souls from their bodies. He cannot mean, as 
Raingeard supposes, souls whose minds have immediately 
passed to the sun, for he has just said that the separation of 
mind from soul takes place at the second death on the moon 
and neither here nor in 944 ¥ infra does he allow for any 
exception in the sense of the doctrine of the Hermetic Tractate, 
x. 16, where νοῦς is separated from ψυχή at the moment when 


200 Γ 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 943 


fashion : All soul, whether without mind or with it,@ 
when it has issued from the body ἢ is destined to 
wander (in) the region between earth and moon but 
not for an equal time. Unjust and licentious souls 
pay penalties for their offences ; but the good souls 
must in the gentlest part of the air, which they call 
“the meads of Hades,” ὁ pass a certain set time 
sufficient to purge and blow away (the) pollutions 
contracted from the body as from an evil odour.4 
(Then), as if brought home from banishment abroad, 
they savour joy most like that of initiates, which 
attended by glad expectation is mingled with con- 


the soul leaves the body (cf. Scott, Hermetica, ii, p. 265). In 
De Genio Socratis, 591 p—592 pd Plutarch makes νοῦς and 
ψυχή not really two different substances as here in the De 
Facie but considers ψυχή to be a degeneration of νοῦς. 

e.Cf De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 563 Ἑ : ἐπεὶ yap ἐξέπεσε 

τὸ φρονοῦν τοῦ σώματος .. 

¢ For the location of Hades cf. De Iside, 382 © and the 
etymology in De Latenter Vivendo, 1130 a (ef. Plato, Gorgias, 
493 8 and Phaedo, 80 bp); for the identification of Hades with 
the dark air cf. [Plutarch], De Vita et Poesi Homeri, § 97; 
Philodemus, De Pietate, c. 13 (Dox. Graeci, p. 547 b); Cor- 
nutus, 6. 5 and c. 35; Heraclitus, Quaestiones Homericae, 
8 41. Reference to a mead (λειμών) or meads in the under- 
world is common: cf. Odyssey, xi. 539, 573 and xxiv. 13-14; 
Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, 32 f 6 and 222; Plato, 
Gorgias, 524 a, Republic, 614 © and 616 B. The Neo- 
Platonists argued that the λειμών in these Platonic passages 
is meant to be located in the atmosphere under the moon : 
Proclus, In Rem Publicam, ii, pp. 132. 20-133. 15 (Kroll) ; 
Olympiodorus, /n Gorgiam, p. 237. 10-13 (Norvin); Hermias, 
In Phaedrum, p. 161. 3-9 (Couvreur). 

@ Cf. De Antro Nymph. 88. 11-12 (p. 64. 24-25 [Nauck]) : 
Proclus, In Timaeum, iii, p. 331. 6-9 (Diehl) ; and in general 
on the pollution of the soul by association with the body 
Plato, Phaedo, 81 s-c. Plutarch in a different context uses the 
words: . . . ὅταν ἀτμοὶ πονηροί. . . ταῖς THs ψυχῆς. . . ava- 
κραθῶσι περιόδοις (De Tuenda Sanitate, 129 c). 


201 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(943) κεκραμένην' μετ᾽ ἐλπίδος ἡδείας" ἔχουσι: πολλὰς 
D γὰρ ἐξωθεῖ καὶ ἀποκυματίζει γλιχομένας ἤδη τῆς 
σελήνης ἐνίας δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ περικάτωΣΝ τρεπο- 
μένας οἷον εἰς βυθὸν αὖθις ὁρῶσι καταδυομένας . 
αἴ Ὁ ἄνω γενόμεναι καὶ βεβαίως ἱδρυθεῖσαι᾽ πρῶ- 
τον μὲν ὥσπερ οἱ νικηφόροι περιίασιν" ἀναδούμεναιΐ 
στεφάνοις πτερῶν εὐσταθείας λεγομένοις ὅτι τῆς 
ψυχῆς τὸ ἄλογον καὶ τὸ παθητικὸν εὐήνιον ἐπιεικῶς 
τῷ λόγῳ καὶ κεκοσμημένον ἐν τῷ βίῳ παρέσχοντο. 
δεύτερον, ἀκτῖνι τὴν ὄψιν ἐοικυῖαιΣ περὶ δὲ τὴν 
φύσιν" ἄνω κουφιζομένην ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα τῷ περὶ 
τὴν σελήνην αἰθέρι, καὶ τόνον ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ" καὶ δύνα- 


Madvig ; συγκεκραμένη -Ε, B. 
Xylander in his version ; ἰδίας -Εἰ, B. 
Madvig ; περὶ κάτω -E, B 
E ; καταγινομένας -B. 
Wyttenbach ; ἑδρύθησαν -E, B. 
Wyttenbach ; περιίστασιν -E : περιιστᾶσιν -B. 
Hutten ; ἀναδούμενοι -E, B. 
Wyttenbach ; ἐοικέναι -E, B. 

9. Sandbach (who, however, reads πυρὶ for περὶ after 
Wyttenbach) ; περὶ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν -E, B. 

10 Wyttenbach ; ad’ αὑτοῦ -E, 


ort ὅδ᾽. σι αὶ © DS μὸ 


α For life on earth as the soul’s exile from its proper home 
cf. De Exilio, 607 c-e ; and for the comparison with initiates 
and what follows in this vein a few lines below cf. fragment 
VI (vii, p. 23. 4-17 [Bernardakis]). 

> Cf. De Genio Socratis, 591 c, and Plato’s Phaedrus, 248 
A-B, especially ai δὲ δὴ ἄλλαι γλιχόμεναι μὲν ἅπασαι τοῦ ἄνω 
ἕπονται, ἀδυνατοῦσαι δέ, ὑποβρύχιαι συμπεριφέρονται κτλ. 

¢ For life as an athletic contest and the soul as athlete cf. 
De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 561 a, De Genio Socratis, 593 Ὁ-Ὲ 
and 593 r—594 a. The conception is Platonic (cf. Republic, 
621 c-p, Phaedrus, 256 8); and it is irrelevant to cite oriental 
notions of life as a combat and immortality as a triumph as 
Soury does (La Démonologie de Plutarque, p. 189, n. 1) after 


202 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 943 


fusion and excitement.* For many, even as they are 
in the act of clinging to the moon, she thrusts off and 
sweeps away ; and some of those souls too that are 
on the moon they see turning upside down as if sink- 
ing again into the deep.? Those that have got up, 
however, and have found a firm footing first go about 
like victors crowned with wreaths of feathers called 
wreaths of steadfastness,° because in life they had 
made the irrational or affective element of the soul 
orderly and tolerably tractable to reason 7%; secondly, 
in appearance resembling a ray of light but in respect 
of their nature, which in the upper region is buoyant 
as it is here in ours, resembling the ether about the 
moon,’ they get from it both tension and strength 


Cumont. Soury follows Raingeard in misconstruing στεφάνοις 
. . . λεγομένοις and supposing that πτερῶν εὐσταθείας is an 
‘expression mystique” (op. cit. pp. 189 and 191-192). 
εὐσταθείας does not depend upon πτερῶν or vice versa; and 
Plutarch has simply woven the “ feathers of the soul,’” which 
appear throughout the myth of the Phaedrus, into a wreath 
that is given to the souls of the good for their steadfastness, 
just as the victorious souls in Phaedrus, 256 8 become ὑπό- 
πτεροι because in life they were ἐγκρατεῖς αὑτῶν καὶ κόσμιοι. 

@ Of. De Genio Socratis, 592 a, and Plato’s Phaedrus, 247 B 
(n.b. εὐήνια ὄντα ῥᾳδίως πορεύεται). 

ὁ αἰθήρ for Plato was simply the uppermost and purest air 
(cf. Timaeus, 58 Ὁ. Phaedo, 109 8 and 111 8); but here the 
word is probably used under Stoic influence, for which see 
note d on 928 p and note g on 922 B supra and ef. [Plato], 
Aziochus, 366 ἃ (ἡ ψυχὴ συναλγοῦσα τὸν οὐράνιον ποθεῖ καὶ 
σύμφυλον αἰθέρα). ‘These last sentences of chapter 28 show 
several definitely Stoic traits, especially the conception of 
κε tension,’’ nourishment of the soul by the exhalations, and 
the use of the quotation from Heraclitus. It has long been 
customary to compare with this passage Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 
i. 19, 43, and Sextus Empiricus, ddv. Math. ix. 71-73 (ef. 
Heinze, NXenokrates, pp. 126-128; K. Reinhardt, Kosmos 
und Sympathie, pp. 308-313 and p. 323; ἢ. M. Jones, 
Class. Phil. xxvii [1932], pp. 113 ff.). 


203 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ 8, 
(943) μιν οἷον τὰ στομούμενα βαφὴν ἴσχουσι: TO yap 
> \ ” \ / Ξ. \ , 
E ἀραιὸν ἔτι καὶ διακεχυμένον ῥώννυται καὶ γίγνεται 
\ \ \ σ >. ly \ ~ 4 > 
σταθερὸν καὶ διαυγὲς ὥσθ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς τυχούσης ava- 
~ / 
θυμιάσεως τρέφεσθαι, καὶ καλῶς Ἡράκλειτος 
εἶπεν ὅτι αἵ ψυχαὶ ὀσμῶνται καθ᾽ “Αιδην. 
~ an ~ / Α 
29. ᾿Εφορῶσι δὲ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῆς σελήνης τὸ 
᾿ \ \ 7 \ \ / » c An 
μέγεθος Kat τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὴν φύσιν οὐχ ἁπλῆν 
59.9 Μ 5 9 τ »” / \ ~ 
οὐδ᾽ ἄμικτον ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἄστρου σύγκραμα καὶ γῆς 
2» ~ / \ δ 
οὖσαν: ὡς γὰρ ἡ γῆ πνεύματι μεμιγμένη καὶ ὑγρό- 
a ~ \ 
{τητι μαλακὴ γέγονε Kal TO αἷμα TH σαρκὶ παρ- 
/ \ ” > / “ 2 ~ 9)... 
ἔχει τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐγκεκραμένον οὕτως" τῷ αἰθέρι 
/ \ 7] > / A / 
λέγουσι τὴν σελήνην ἀνακεκραμένην διὰ βάθους 
“ Ἐν > \ , ¢ S45 Ὁ 
ἅμα μὲν ἔμψυχον εἶναι καὶ γόνιμον ἅμα δ᾽ ἰσόρροπον 
» Ἁ \ \ A / ~ , 
F ἔχειν τὴν πρὸς τὸ βαρὺ συμμετρίαν τῆς κουφότητος. 
͵ ΄- 
καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν οὕτως" τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τῶν ἄνω καὶ 
AL Pri , ΄ / / > 
TOV κάτω φύσει φερομένων συνηρμοσμένον ἀπηλ- 
λάχθαι παντάπασι τῆς κατὰ τόπον κινήσεως. ταῦτα 


1 Papabasileios ; ὕγρω vac. 5 -Εἰ, B. 
2 E; οὕτω -B. 
3 Ἢ. οὕτω -B. 
4 Stephanus (1624); ἐν τῶ ἄνω καὶ τῶ -E, B. 





* For the Stoic doctrine of τόνος ef. De Stoicorum Repug- 
nantiis, 1054 a-s, De Communibus Notitiis, 1085 c-p, and 
S.V.F. ii, frags. 447 and 448. The metaphor of “ temper- 
ing’ was also commonly used by the Stoies in connection 
with the soul: ef. S.V.F. ii, frags. 804-806. 

» Frag. 98 (i, p. 173. 3 [Diels-Kranz]). For the nourish- 
ment of disembodied souls cf. the passages of Cicero and 


204 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 943 


as edged instruments get a temper,” for what laxness 
and diffuseness they still have is strengthened and 
becomes firm and translucent. In consequence they 
are nourished by any exhalation that reaches them, 
and Heraclitus was right in saying: “‘ Souls employ 
the sense of smell in Hades.”’ ὃ 

29. First they behold the moon as she is in her- 
self ©: her magnitude and beauty and nature, which 
is not simple and unmixed but a blend as it were of 
star and earth. Just as the earth has become soft 
by having been mixed with breath and moist{ure) 
and as blood gives rise to sense-perception in the 
flesh with which it is commingled,’ so the moon, they 
say,’ because it has been permeated through and 
through by ether is at once animated and fertile 
and at the same time has the proportion of lightness 
to heaviness in equipoise. In fact it is in this way 
too, they say, that the universe itself has entirely 
escaped local motion, because it has been constructed 
out of the things that naturally move upwards and 
those that naturally move downwards.‘ This was 


Sextus cited in note e, p. 203. Here the argument of Lamprias 
in 940 c-p supra is incorporated into the myth, which thereby 
appears to substantiate the argument. 

© Plutarch certainly wrote αὐτῆς σελήνης (or perhaps αὐτῆς 
τῆς σελήνης) under the influence of Plato’s “ἢ true earth,’’ αὐτὴ 
ἡ γῆ. in Phaedo, 109 B 7, 110 B 6 (cf. 935 a supra and 944 B 
infra). 

4 Cf. Aristotle, De Part. Animal. 656 8 19-21 and 25-26, 
666 a 16-17; and Plato, Timaeus, 77 © on the connection of 
the blood-vessels with τὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πάθος. 

ἐ Not “Ὑ the demons * who told the stranger the story, as 
Raingeard says, but the human authors of the theory men- 
tioned in the next sentence ; cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 
151-152. 

i Cf. S.V.F. ii, frag. 555 and Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 
Psi αἰ. 105; 


205 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(943) δὲ καὶ Ξενοκράτης ἔοικεν ἐννοῆσαι θείῳ τινὶ λο- 
γισμῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβὼν παρὰ Πλάτωνος. ᾿]λάτων 
γάρ ἐστιν 6 καὶ τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον ἐκ γῆς καὶ 
πυρὸς συνηρμόσθαι διὰ τῶν {δυεῖν μεταξὺ φύσεων 
> ~ 
ἀναλογίᾳ δεθεισῶν" ἀποφηνάμενος: οὐδὲν" yap εἰς 
αἴσθησιν ἐξικνεῖσθαι ᾧ μή τι γῆς ἐμμέμικται καὶ 
φωτός. ὁ δὲ Ξενοκράτης τὰ μὲν ἄστρα καὶ τὸν 

944 ἥλιον ἐκ πυρός φησι καὶ τοῦ πρώτου πυκνοῦ συγ- 
a \ \ / > “ / ~ 
κεῖσθαι τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου πυκνοῦ 
\ ~ 2307 3" ἢ \ \ ~ > A \ 
καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου ἀέρος τὴν δὲ γῆν ἐξ ὕδατος [καὶ 
35. 4 \ ~ / ~ ~ “ \ / 
ἀέρος" Kat τοῦ τρίτου τῶν πυκνῶν: ὅλως δὲ μήτε 
τὸ πυκνὸν αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μήτε τὸ μανὸν εἶναι 
ψυχῆς δεκτικόν. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ οὐσίας σε- 
λήνης. εὖρος δὲ καὶ μέγεθος οὐχ ὅσον οἱ γεωμέτραι 
/ > \ A / > / ~ 
λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ μεῖζον πολλάκις ἐστί. καταμετρεῖ 
~ ~ ζω ς ~ 
δὲ τὴν σκιὰν τῆς γῆς ὀλιγάκις τοῖς ἑαυτῆς" με- 
/ 
γέθεσιν οὐχ ὑπὸ σμικρότητος, ἀλλὰ θερμζ(ότερον)" 
- x 
ἐπείγει τὴν κίνησιν ὅπως ταχὺ διεκπερᾷ TOV σκο- 
τώδη τόπον ὑπεκφέρουσα {τὰςΣ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ζψυ- 
cok 7 \ , “Whey. \ 
yas)’ σπευδούσας Kat βοώσας: οὐκέτι γὰρ 
΄ - / ~ \ \ 
efaxovovow ἐν TH σκιᾷ γενόμεναι τῆς περὶ TOV 


1 Purser ; διὰ τῶν vac. 4-1, 5-B. 

2 Leonicus (cf. Plato, Timaeus, 31 c, 32 B-c; Plutarch, De 
An. Proc. 1016 r—1017 a); δοθεισῶν -E, B. 

3 -Anon., Aldine, R.J.94 (cf. Plato, Timaeus, 31 B); οὐδένα 
-E, B. 

4 Excised by H. C.; καὶ ἀέρος -E καὶ πυρὸς -B. 

5 E.; ἑαυτοῦ -B. 


206 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 943-944 


also the conception of Xenocrates who, taking his 
start from Plato, seems“ to have reached it by a 
kind of superhuman reasoning. Plato is the one who 
declared that each of the stars as well was constructed 
of earth and fire bound together in a proportion by 
means of the (two) intermediate natures, for nothing, 
as he said, attains perceptibility that does not contain 
an admixture of earth and light’; but Xenocrates 
says that the stars and the sun are composed of fire 
and the first density, the moon of the second density 
and air that is proper to her, and the earth of water 
[and air] and the third kind of density and that in 
general neither density all by itself nor subtility is 
receptive of soul.© So much for the moon’s substance. 
As to her breadth or magnitude, it is not what the 
geometers say but many times greater. She measures 
off the earth’s shadow with few of her own magnitudes 
not because it is small but she more ardently hastens 
her motion in order that she may quickly pass through 
the gloomy place bearing away (the souls) of the 
good which cry out and urge her on because when 
they are in the shadow they no longer catch the sound 


¢ The Greek does not imply, as Adler supposes, that 
Plutarch had any doubt about what Xenocrates had said (cf. 
R. M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, p. 55). 

» Timaeus, 40 a and 31 s—32 c; ef. [Plato], Epinomis, 
981 p-E; Plutarch, De Fortuna Romanorum, 316 Ἐ-Ὲ. 
Timaeus, 31 8 strictly requires γῆς. . . καὶ πυρός here; but 
according to Timaeus, 45 B and 58 c φῶς is the species of fire 
that produces visibility. 

© Xenocrates, frag. 56 (Heinze) ; for text and implications 
ef. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 152. 


6 Von Arnim; θερμ vac. 7 ἐπείγει -E.; θερμότητος ἐπείγει 
-Β ; θερμοτάτην ἐπείγει -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94. 

7 Reiske; ὑπεκφέρουσα τῶν ἀγαθῶν σπευδούσας -F, B; 
ὑπεκφέρουσα ψυχὰς τῶν ἀγαθῶν σπευδούσας -Basiliensis. 


207 


(944 


) 
Β 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> \ c / “ \ \ / c ~ 
οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίας. ἅμα δὲ καὶ κάτωθεν at τῶν 
κολαζομένων ψυχαὶ τηνικαῦτα διὰ τῆς σκιᾶς ὀδυρό- 
ΛΝ 1.15 , ὔ \ \ 
μεναι <Kal)’ ἀλαλάζουσαι προσφέρονται. διὸ καὶ 
κροτεῖν ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν εἰώθασιν οἱ πλεῖστοι 
χαλκώματα καὶ ψόφον ποιεῖν καὶ πάταγον ἐπὶ τὰς 
2, γῶν Bin S TIA \ \ ͵ , 
ψυχάς," ἐκφοβεῖ δ᾽ αὐτὰς καὶ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσ- 
ὠπον ὅταν ἐγγὺς γένωνται BrAooupov® τι καὶ φρι- 
“ e / ” > > ~ > > a 
κῶδες ὁρώμενον. ἔστι δ᾽ οὐ τοιοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ 
ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔχει γῆ κόλπους βαθεῖς καὶ μεγάλους, 


ἕνα μὲν ἐνταῦθα διὰ στηλῶν Ἡρακλείων ἀναχεό- 


6 " \ Cn 2am ” δὲ \ Kid, \ 
μενον €LOW προς μας ἔξω € TOV ασπίιον και 


τοὺς περὶ τὴν ᾿ρυθρὰν θάλατταν, οὕτως" βάθη 
ταῦτα τῆς σελήνης ἐστὶ καὶ κοιλώματα. καλοῦσι 
δ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ μὲν μέγιστον ᾿κάτης μυχόν, ὅπου καὶ 
/ / € \ \ a - a“ ” 
δίκας διδόασιν at ψυχαὶ καὶ λαμβάνουσιν ὧν av ἤδη 
γεγενημέναι δαίμονες ἢ πάθωσιν ἢ δράσωσι, τὰ δὲ 


1 Basiliensis ; ὀδυρόμεναι, ἀλαλάζουσαι -Εὶ, B. 
5. Basiliensis ; φυλάς -E, B. 
8 Stephanus (1624) ; βλοσσυρόν -K, B. 
4 E 3 οὕτω - 

α Plutarch here gives a “ἧ mythical correction’ of the 
astronomical calculations in 923 a-B and 932 B supra (on the 
text and the Pare Oran of this *‘ correction ᾽ cf. Class. Phil. 
xlvi [1951], pp. 152-153) and also a mythical explanation of 
the acceleration of which he had spoken in 933 8 supra. With 
this account of the effect of the lunar eclipse upon the dis- 
embodied souls cf. De Genio Socratis, 591 ὁ and for the har- 
mony in the heavens cf. 590 c-p there, De Musica, 1147, 
Plato’s Republic, 617 8, Aristotle’s De Caelo, 290 b 12—291 
a 28. 

» Cf. Aemilius Paulus, 17 (264 8); Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 
12. 9 (54); Tacitus, Annals, i. 28; Juvenal, vi. 442-443. 
The purpose of the custom is here made to fit the myth ; in 


208 





THE FACE ON THE MOON, 944 


of the harmony of heaven.? At the same time too 
with wails (and) cries the souls of the chastised then 
approach through the shadow from below. That is 
why most people have the custom of beating brasses 
during eclipses and of raising a din and clatter against 
the souls,? which are frightened off also by the so- 
called face when they get near it, for it has a grim 
and horrible aspect.’ It is no such thing, however ; 
but just as our earth contains gulfs that are deep and 
extensive,’ one here pouring in towards us through 
the Pillars of Heracles and outside the Caspian and 
the Red Sea with its gulfs,’ so those features are 
depths and hollows of the moon. The largest of them 
is called’ “‘ Hecaté’s Recess,’ % where the souls 
suffer and exact penalties for whatever they have 
endured or committed after having already become 


De Genio Socratis, 591 c the moon herself flashes and bellows 
to frighten away the impure souls. 

¢ Cf. Epigenes in Clement, Stromat. v. 49 (=Kern, Or- 
phicorum Fragmenta, frag. 33): Γοργόνιον τὴν σελήνην διὰ τὸ 
ἐν αὐτῇ πρόσωπον. Cf. the notion that the face in the moon is 
that of the Sibyl (De Pythiae Oraculis, 398 c-p; De Sera 
Numinis Vindicta, 566 Ὁ). 

4 Cf. Plato, Phaedo, 109 8. 

¢ For the Caspian see note f on 941 c supra. By “ Red 
Sea’ Plutarch means what we call the Indian Ocean plus 
the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea; in Quaest. Conviv. 733 B 
he cites Agatharchidas who wrote an extensive work on the 
* Red Sea ”’ (cf. Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 250 [pp. 441 ff., 
Bekker}). 

f Cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 151 on 943 ἘΣ 

9 For Hecaté and the moon see notes ¢ on 937 F and 6 on 
942 p supra; cf. Sophocles, frag. 492 (Nauck?) and Kern, 
Orphicorum Fragmenta, frag. 204. For Hecaté’s association 
with a cave cf. Homeric Hymn IT, 24-25, and Roscher, Uber 
Selene und Verwandtes, pp. 46-48. Plutarch himself 
associates μυχός with the “ punishments in Hades” (De 
Superstitione, 167 a). 

209 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(944) δύο μακρὰ {τὰς II[vAas).* περαιοῦνται yap at 
ψυχαὶ δι᾿ αὐτῶν viv μὲν εἰς Ta πρὸς οὐρανὸν τῆς 
, A \ , > \ \ A > , 3 
σελήνης viv δὲ πάλιν εἰς τὰ πρὸς γῆν. ὀνομάζεται 
ὃ \ \ \ \ > \ ~ λ / "HA ,ὔ 
ἐ τὰ μὲν πρὸς οὐρανὸν τῆς σελήνης ύσιον 
πεδίον' τὰ δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα Φερσεφόνης οἶκος" ἀντίχθονος. 
80. Οὐκ ἀεὶ δὲ διατρίβουσιν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς" οἱ δαί- 
> \ , 7 A 7 > 
μονες ἀλλὰ χρηστηρίων᾽' δεῦρο κατίασιν ἐπιμελη- 
D σόμενοι καὶ ταῖς ἀνωτάτω" συμπάρεισι καὶ συνορ- 
γιάζουσι τῶν τελετῶν κολασταί τε γίγνονται καὶ 
7 3 / \ ~ ” / 
φύλακες ἀδικημάτων Kal σωτῆρες ἔν τε πολέμοις 
\ \ ὔ 9 / a > vn \ 
καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ἐπιλάμπουσιν. ὅτι δ᾽ av μὴ 
x \ x , >\\>2 ¢ > 39 ΚΑΘ ΚΑ \ 
καλῶς περὶ ταῦτα πράξωσιν ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ὀργῆς" ἢ πρὸς 
+ 7] an“ / Q7 / , ~ \ 
ἄδικον χάριν ἢ φθόνῳ δίκην τίνουσιν: ὠθοῦνται yap 
1 Leonicus ; τὰς δὲ δύο μακράς -K, B. 
2 H.C.; no lacuna indicated in Εἰ or B. 
3 H.C. ; ὀνομάζεσθαι -Ἐ, B. 
4B; παιδίον -E. 
5 After von Arnim (who read οἶκον because he kept ὀνομά- 
ζεσθαι supra); οὐκ -B, B. 
6 Bernardakis (cf. De Tuenda Sanitate, 128 B: διατρίβειν 
ἐπ᾽ ἀκτῆς) ; αὐτὴν -E, B; αὐτῇ -Wyttenbach. 
7 Basiliensis ; ypnornpiw -K, B. 


8 B; avwraras -E. 


® -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94; ὑπὲρ γῆς -E, Β. 








“ This has been called inconsistent with the preceding 
statement in chapter 28 that only pure or purified souls attain 
the moon. Even the pure souls that reach the moon, how- 
ever, still have the affective soul as well as mind; and 
Plutarch has already said in chapter 28 (942 F) that the life 
which they lead on the moon is οὐ μακάριον οὐδὲ θεῖον. 


210 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 944 


Spirits“; and the two long ones are called ¢“ the 
Gates "’),? for through them pass the souls now to 
the side of the moon that faces heaven and now back 
to the side that faces earth.° The side of the moon 
towards heaven is named “ Elysian plain,’’? the 
hither side “ House of counter-terrestrial Pherse- 
phoné.”’ δ 

30. Yet not forever do the Spirits tarry upon the 
moon ; they descend hither to take charge of oracles, 
they attend and participate in the highest of the 
mystic rituals, they act as warders against misdeeds 
and chastisers of them, and they flash forth as 
saviours manifest in war and on the sea.’ For any 
act that they perform in these matters not fairly but 
inspired by wrath or for an unjust end or out of 
envy they are penalized, for they are cast out upon 


> Cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 153. 

¢ They pass to the outer side on their way to the “ἡ second 
death “* (944 & ff. infra) and to the hither side on their way 
to rebirth in bodies (945 c infra). In Amatorius, 766 Β the 
place to which souls come to be reborn in the body is called 
ot Σελήνης καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτης λειμῶνες. 

4 See 942 F supra and note d there. 

¢ Plutarch uses ἀντίχθων in the usual Pythagorean sense 
in De An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1028 8 (cf. De Placitis, 891 F, 
895.c, 895 E= Aétius, ii. 29. 4; ili. 9.25 ili. 11.3). Identi- 
fication of the moon with the counter-earth is ascribed to 
certain ‘“ Pythagoreans”’ (but cf. Cherniss, Aristotle’s 
Criticism of Plato and the Academy, i, p. 562) by Simplicius, 
De Caelo, p. 512. 17-20 (ef. Asclepius, Metaph. p. 35. 24-27 ; 
Scholia in Aristotelem, 505 a 1 [Brandis]). 

1 Cf. De Defectu Oraculorum, 417 s-B and De Genio 
Socratis, 591 c; R. M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, 
pp. 29, 59, and 55-56. Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth. vi. 30 (p. 18. 4 
[Deubner]) says that some people considered Pythagoras to 
be such a Spirit from the moon. In the last clause of the 
sentence above Plutarch refers to the Dioscuri: cf. Lysander, 
14 (439 c); De Defectu Oraculorum, 426 c. 

211 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(944) αὖθις ἐπὶ γῆν συνειργνύμενοι' σώμασιν ἀνθρω- 
πίνοις. ἐκ δὲ τῶν βελτιόνων ἐκείνων οἵ τε περὶ 
τὸν Κρόνον ὄντες ἔφασαν αὑτοὺς" εἶναι καὶ πρό- 

> A , ΜΠ ἡ , 3 , ” 
τερον ἐν τῇ Κρήτῃ τοὺς ᾿Ιδαίους Δακτύλους ἔν τε 
E Φρυγίᾳ τοὺς Κορύβαντας γενέσθαι καὶ τοὺς περὶ 
Βοιωτίαν ἐν Οὐδώρᾳ' Τροφωνιάδας καὶ μυρίους 
ἄλλους πολλαχόθι τῆς οἰκουμένης ὧ ὧν ἱερὰ καὶ τιμαὶ 
καὶ προσηγορίαι διαμένουσιν αἱ δὲ δυνάμεις ἔνευον" 
εἰς ἕτερον τόπον τῆς ἀρίστης ἐξαλλαγῆς τυγχανόν- 
των. τυγχάνουσι δ᾽ οἱ μὲν πρότερον οἱ δ᾽ ὕστερον, 
ὅταν ὁ νοῦς ἀποκριθῇ τῆς ψυχῆς. ἀποκρίνεται δ᾽ 
ἔρωτι τῆς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκόνος, δι᾿ ἧς ἐπιλάμπει 
τὸ ἐφετὸν καὶ καλὸν καὶ θεῖον καὶ μακάριον οὗ 
πᾶσα φύσις, ἄλλη δ᾽ ἄλλως, ὀρέγεται. καὶ γὰρ 
αὐτὴν τὴν σελήνην ἔρωτι τοῦ ἡλίου περιπολεῖν δεῖ" 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 ; συρρηγνύμενοι -E, B. 
2 Bernardakis (implied in the versions of Xylander and 
Kepler) ; αὐτοὺς -E, B. 
3 Aldine, Basiliensis ; ἰδίους -E, B. 
4 FE, B; οὐδώσᾳ -Aldine ; Λεβαδίᾳ -Basiliensis. 
Apelt : ἐνίων -Εἰ, B. 


Apelt ; περιπεριπολεῖν ἀεὶ -E : περιπολεῖν ἀεὶ -B. 


59 σι 


* Cf. 926 c supra (ἡ ψυχήν .. . τῷ σώματι συνεῖρκται). De 
An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1023 c (τῷ σώματι συνειργμένη 861]. ἡ 
ψυχή) : for the ἡ misbehaviour ᾿" of Spirits cf. De Defectu 
Oraculorui: 417 85, 417 Ἐ-Ὲ, De Iside, 361 «a ff., where the 
punishment of these Spirits is mentioned in 361 c (ef. De 
Defectu Oraculorum, 415 c). 

» i.e. not those who for misdeeds are cast out upon earth 
again. The attendants of Cronus are the δαίμονες of 942 a 
supra. Cf. Porphyry’s account of good and evil spirits in 
De Abstinentia, ii. 38-39. 

¢ Of. Numa, 15 (70 c-p); [Plutarch], De Fluviis, xiii. 3 
(vii, p. 305. 4-12 [Bernardakis]) ; Strabo, x. 3. 22 (ας. 473) ; 
Pausanias, ν. 7. 6-10; Diodorus, v. 64. 3-7. 

212 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 944 


earth again confined in human bodies.* To the 
former class of better Spirits ® the attendants of 
Cronos said that they belong themselves as did afore- 
time the Idaean Dactyls° in Crete and the Corybants ἡ 
in Phrygia as well as the Boeotian Trophoniads in 
Udora° and thousands of others in many parts of the 
world whose rites, honours, and titles persist but 
whose powers tended to another place as_ they 
achieved the ultimate alteration. They achieve it, 
some sooner and some later, once the mind has been 
separated from the soul.’ It is separated by love for 
the image in the sun through which shines forth 
manifest the desirable and fair and divine and blessed 
towards which all nature in one way or another 
yearns,’ for it must be out of love for the sun that 
the moon herself goes her rounds and gets into con- 


4 Cf. Schwenn, R.F. xi. 2 (1922), 1441-1446, and Lobeck, 
Aglaophamos, pp. 1139-1155. 

ὁ This place seems to be mentioned nowhere else : but, 
since Plutarch here refers to inactive oracles from which the 
Spirits have departed, the change to Λεβαδείᾳ cannot be 
right, for in De Defectu Oraculorum, 411 Ἐ-π Lebadeia is said 
to be the only remaining active oracle in Boeotia where there 
are many others now silent or even deserted. 

7 Cf. 943 B supra. 

9 Plato’s Republic, 507-509 is Plutarch’s main inspiration. 
It is a passage which he echoes or cites many times (¢.g. De 
Tside, 372 a, De E, 393 v, De Defectu Oraculorum, 413 c and 
433 Ὁ-π, Ad Principem Inerud. 780 F and 781 ¥F, Plat. Quaest. 
1006 r—1007 a); and his references to it show that “ the 
image in the sun,” τῆς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκόνος, here means the 
visible likeness of the good which the sun manifests and not, 
as Kepler suggests, the reflection of the sun seen in the moon 
as inamirror. The last part of the sentence with the notion 
that all nature strives towards the good and the term ἐφετόν 
itself are drawn from Aristotle (Physics, 192 a 16-19 and the 
whole of Physics A, 9 and Metaphysics A, 7); ef. De Iside, 
372 e-F and Amatorius, 770 B. 


213 


(944) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


καὶ συγγίγνεσθαι ὀρεγομένην ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ γονι- 


μώτατον "(δέχεσθαι)" λείπεται δ᾽ ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς 


F φύσις ἐπὶ τῆς σελήνης" οἷον ἴχνη τινὰ βίου καὶ 


945 


ὀνείρατα διαφυλάττουσα, καὶ περὶ ταύτης ὀρθῶς 


ἡγοῦ λελέχθαι τὸ 
\ > 5 νυν » > / Λ 
ψυχὴ δ᾽ ἠύτ᾽ ὄνειρος ἀποπταμένη πεπότηται. 


οὐδὲ γὰρ εὐθὺς οὐδὲ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγεῖσα 
τοῦτο πέπονθεν ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον ὅταν ἔρημος καὶ μόνη 
τοῦ νοῦ ἀπαλλαττομένη γένηται. καὶ “Opnpos 
ὧν εἶπε πάντων μάλιστα δὴ κατὰ θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔοικε 
περὶ τῶν καθ᾽ “Αιδουΐ 


τὸν δὲ μετ᾽ εἰσενόησα βίην ᾿Ηρακληείην,' 


εἴδωλον: αὐτὸς δὲ μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσιν. 


> 7 A 7 hee > ee ἸᾺ 9O\ 
αὐτός TE yap ἕκαστος ἡμῶν οὐ θυμός" ἐστιν οὐδὲ 
/ 9.9 > / / ᾽ \ / 5.» 
φόβος οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθυμία καθάπερ οὐδὲ σάρκες οὐδ 
¢ , 2. \> 76 , \ ἘΞ “ 
ὑνρότητες ἀλλ᾽ ὧ" διανοούμεθα καὶ φρονοῦμεν, 7 


+ Wyttenbach (cf. 945 c infra: ἡ σελήνη. . . δεχομένη 
. .. and 929 ὁ supra: δέχεται τὸν ἥλιον) ; no lacuna -E, B. 

2 H.C. (cf. 944 B-c supra); τὴν σελήνην -E, Β ; τῇ σελήνῃ 
-Wyttenbach. 

3 Kaltwasser and Wyttenbach after Amyot’s version ; 
καθόλου -Ἐὶ, B. 

4 mss. of Homer and editors ; ἡρακλείην -E, B. 

5 -Anon., Aldine, R.J. 945; ev@upds -E, B, Basiliensis. 

6 Leonicus ; ὃ -Εἰ, B. 


« The specific nature of this fertilization is described in 
945 c infra; the conception of the sun as an image of god 
is connected with a reference to its fructifying force in De FP, 
393 Ὁ. For sexual language used of the moon and sun see 
the references in note a on 929 ὁ supra. 

ὃ Odyssey, xi. 222. 

© Odyssey, xi. 601-602. Similar interpretations of this 
914. 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 944-945 


junction with him in her yearning (to receive) from 
him what is most fructifying.* The substance of the 
soul is left upon the moon and retains certain vestiges 
and dreams of life as it were ; it is this that you must 
properly take to be the subject of the statement 


Soul like a dream has taken wing and sped,” 


for it is not straightway nor once it has been released 
from the body that it reaches this state but later 
when, divorced from the mind, it is deserted and 
alone. Above all else that Homer said his words 
concerning those in Hades appear to have been 
divinely inspired 


Thereafter marked I mighty Heracles— 
His shade; but he is with the deathless gods. . . .° 


In fact the self of each of us is not anger or fear or 
desire just as it is not bits of flesh or fluids either but 
is that with which we reason and understand ?; and 


passage are common among the Neo-Pythagoreans and 
Neo-Platonists: ef. especially [Plutarch], De Vita et Poesi 
Homeri, chap. 123; Plotinus, Enn.i. 1.12; iv. 3.27 and 32; 
vi. 4. 16; Proclus, Jn Rem Publicam, i, Ὁ. 120. 22 ff. and p. 
172. 9 ff. (Kroll); Cumont, Rev. de Philologie, xliv (1920), 
pp. 237-240, who contends that the doctrine itself arose in 
Alexandria where Aristarchus became acquainted with it. 

4 Cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 564 c and Adv. Coloten, 
1119 a. For the νοῦς as the true self cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 
1166 a 16-17 and 22-23, 1168 b 35, 1169 a 2, 1178 a 2-7. 
Plato usually speaks of the ψυχή without further qualification 
as the true self (e.g. Laws, 959 a, Phaedo, 115 c [ef. the 
Pseudo-Platonic Alcibiades I, 130 a-c and Awiochus, 365 £}), 
although such passages as Republic, 430 r—431 a, 588 c— 
589 B, 611 c-E can be taken to imply that he meant the 
rational soul only (cf. Plotinus’s use of the last passage in Enn. 
i. 1. 12). Cf. also Cicero, De Republica, vi. 26 (‘‘ mens 
cuiusque is est quisque ᾽) and Marcus Aurelius, ii. 2 with 
Farquharson’s note ad loc. 

215 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(945) = ψυχὴ τυπουμένη μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ τυποῦσα δὲ 
τὸ σῶμα καὶ περιπτύσσουσα' πανταχόθεν ἐκμάτ- 
τεται τὸ εἶδος ὥστε κἂν πολὺν χρόνον χωρὶς ἑκα- 

~ / 
τέρου γένηται" διατηροῦσα τὴν ὁμοιότητα καὶ TOV 
, 3 ” > a > 7 7, Der Ae 
τύπον" εἴδωλον ὀρθῶς ὀνομάζεται. τούτων δ᾽ ἡ 
σελήνη, καθάπερ εἴρηται, στοιχεῖόν ἐστιν: ἀναλύον- 
ται γὰρ εἰς ταύτην ὥσπερ εἰς τὴν γῆν τὰ σώματα 
\ 
τῶν νεκρῶν, ταχὺ μὲν αἱ σώφρονες μετὰ σχολῆς 
ἀπράγμονα καὶ φιλόσοφον στέρξασαι βίον (ἀφεθεῖ- 
σαι γὰρ ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἔτι χρώμεναι 
τοῖς πάθεσιν ἀπομαραίνονται). τῶν δὲ φιλοτίμων 
nw an 4 
B καὶ πρακτικῶν ἐρωτικῶν τε περὶ σώματα Kat θυ- 
a ἔν A ~ / 

μοειδῶν at μὲν οἷον ἐν ὕπνῳ Tats τοῦ βίου μνημο- 
/ / ς 
σύναις ὀνείρασι χρώμεναι διαφέρονται καθάπερ ἡ 
τοῦ ᾿Ενδυμίωνος. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ αὐτὰς τὸ ἄστατον καὶ 

Vrs Wer Wee ΔῈ αν σι , \ 
τὸ ἐμπαθὲς" ἐξίστησι καὶ ἀφέλκει τῆς σελήνης πρὸς 

1 EF; περιπτύσσου -B. 
2B; .. . χωρὶς ἑκατέρου γένηται πολὺν χρόνον -Ἐ). 
-Anon., Aldine, R.J. 94 ; τόπον -E, B. 
4 Kepler, Wyttenbach after Amyot’s version; ἀπαθὲς -Εἰ, B. 


@ Of. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 564 a, where the souls 
are described as τύπον ἐχούσας ἀνθρωποειδῆ. and [Plutarch], 
De Vita et Poesi Homeri, chap. 123 (εἴδωλον ὅπερ ἦν ἀπο- 
πεπλασμένον [2] τοῦ σώματος): Porphyry in Stobaeus, 1. 
xlix. 55 (=i, p. 429. 16-22 [Wachsmuth]). The notion that 
the soul after death retains the pare of the body was 
common (cf. Lucian, Vera Hist. ii. 12), although Alexander 
Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius, viii. 31 gave it as Pytha- 
gorean doctrine (but cf. Antisthenes, frag. 33 [Mullach]). 
With the special point of the present passage that the body 
is given its form by the imprint of the soul, which has itself 
been moulded by the mind, cf. Proclus, τ" Rem Publicam, 
ii, pp. 327. 21-328. 15 (Kroll); Plotinus, iv. 3. 9. 20-23 and 
10. 35-42; Macrobius, Somn. Scip. 1. xiv. 0B: Sextus, P.H. 
i. 85. In Laws, 959 a-p Plato calls the body “ an attendant 
semblance of the self’’ and uses the word εἴδωλα of corpses. 


216 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 945 


the soul receives the impression of its shape through 
being moulded by the mind and moulding in turn and 
enfolding the body on all sides, so that, even if it be 
separated from either one for a long time, since it 
preserves the likeness and the imprint it is correctly 
called an image.” Of these, as has been said,’ the 
moon is the element, for they are resolved into it ° 
as the bodies of the dead are resolved into earth. 
This happens quickly to the temperate souls who 
had been fond of a leisurely, unmeddlesome, and 
philosophical life, for abandoned by the mind and 
no longer exercising the passions for anything they 
wither quietly away. Of the ambitious and the 
active, the irascible and those who are enamoured 
of the body, however, some pass their time ὦ as it 
were in sleep with the memories of their lives for 
dreams as did the soul of Endymion’ ; but, when 
they are excited by restlessness and emotion and 
drawn away from the moon to another birth, she 


The notion that soul encompasses body instead of being 
contained by it comes ultimately from Plato, Timaeus, 34 B. 

> 2,9. 943 A supra. 

¢ For later Neo-Platonic opinions concerning the dis- 
solution of the lower soul see Proclus, Jn Timaeum, iii, Ὁ. 234. 
9 ff. (Diehl) and cf. Plotinus, Enn. iv. 7. 14 (. . . ἀφειμένον 
δὲ τὸ χεῖρον οὐδὲ αὐτὸ ἀπολεῖσθαι ἕως av 7 ὅθεν ἔχει τὴν ἀρχήν). 

4 The expression correlative to ai μέν is ἐπεὶ δ᾽ αὐτάς. an 
the contrast between ἐπεὶ δ᾽ αὐτὰς... ἐξίστησι and the 
present clause requires that διαφέρονται mean “ pass their 
time ’’ rather than ὁ toss about,” “* be distraught,” the mean- 
ing that it has in De Genio Socratis, 591 Ὁ. 

¢ There seems to be no other reference to Endymion’s 
dreams ; but Plutarch may here have been influenced by 
the story that Endymion’s endless sleep was a punishment 
for his passion for Hera (cf. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 
Vetera, iv. 57-58 [p. 265, Wendel]) and Scholia in Theocritum 
Vetera, iii. 49-51 Ὁ [p. 1383, Wendel]). 


Ai BF 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(945) ἄλλην γένεσιν, οὐκ ἐᾷ (νεύειν ἐπὶ γῆν)" ἀλλ᾽ ava- 
a \ , 2 \ \ Ων 29> 
καλεῖται καὶ καταθέλγει." μικρὸν yap οὐδὲν οὐδ 
ἥσυχον οὐδ᾽ ὁμολογούμενον ἔργον ἐστὶν ὅταν ἄνευ 
νοῦ τῷ παθητικῷ σώματος ἐπιλάβωνται. Τιτυοὶ 
\ \ ~ “ \ \ \ 
de καὶ Tuddves 6 te Δελφοὺς κατασχὼν καὶ συν- 
ταράξας τὸ χρηστήριον ὕβρει καὶ βίᾳ Πύθων" ἐξ 
ἐκείνων ἄρα τῶν ψυχῶν ἦσαν, ἐρήμων λόγου" καὶ 
τύφῳ πλανηθέντι τῷ παθητικῷ χρησαμένων, χρόνῳ 
A > / / 5 > «ς \ 4B ¢ / \ 
δὲ κἀκείνας κατεδέξατο" εἰς αὑτὴν" ἡ σελήνη Kal 
C κατεκόσμησεν. εἶτα τὸν νοῦν αὖθις ἐπισπείραντος 
τοῦ ἡλίου τῷ ζωτικῷ δεχομένη νέας ποιεῖ ψυχάς, 
ἡ δὲ γῆ τρίτον σῶμα παρέσχεν. οὐδὲν γὰρ αὕτη 
δίδωσι μετὰ θάνατον ὅσα λαμβάνει πρὸς γένεσιν 
(ἀποδιδοῦσα, ἥλιος δὲ λαμβάνει μὲν οὐδὲν ἀπο- 
1 H.C. (cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 566 a; Frag V1. 
2[VII, p. 22. 9, Bernardakis]) ; οὐκ ἐᾷ vac. 12-K, 9-B. 


2 EK, B*; ἀναθέλγει -B!. 
3 Kaltwasser (cf. Introduction, note 6, p. 12 supra); Tudayv 


-K, B. 
4 Kaltwasser (implied by Kepler’s version) ; ἔρημοι λόγῳ 
ΞΕ B. 5 Leonicus ; κατέδειξεν -E, 


6 B?; αὐτὴν, -E, Β΄. 
7 H.C.; no lacuna indicated in E or B; δίδωσιν {τοῖς 
ἄλλοις δυσί, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδίδωσι) μετὰ θάνατον κτλ. -Wyttenbach. 








« Of. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 565 v-£, 566 a; Plato, 
Phaedo, 81 B-£, 108 a-B. 

> Cf. Odyssey, xi. 576-581; Pindar, Pythian, iv. 90; 
Eustathius, Comment. ad Odysseam, 1581. 54 ff. 

¢ Of. especially De Iside, chaps. 27 and 30. 

4 [lv@wv and 'Τιτυός are named together by Plutarch in 
Pelopidas, 16 (286 c); cf. Strabo, ix. 3. 12 (ec. 422-423) and 
Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, i. 4. 1. 3-5 (22-23). 

¢ For the play on Tudayv-ridos cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 230 a, 
218 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 945 


forbids them (to sink towards earth) * and keeps 
conjuring them back and binding them with charms, 
for it is no slight, quiet, or harmonious business when 
with the affective faculty apart from reason they seize 
upon a body. Creatures like Tityus ὃ and Typho ° 
and the Python? that with insolence and violence 
occupied Delphi and confounded the oracle belonged 
to this class of souls, void of reason and subject to 
the affective element gone astray through delusion ° ; 
but even these in time the moon took back to herself 
and reduced to order. ‘Then when the sun with his 
vital force has again sowed mind in her she receives 
it and produces new souls, and earth in the third place 
furnishes body.’ In fact, the earth gives nothing (in 
giving back) after death all that she takes for genera- 
tion, and the sun takes nothing but takes back the 


which is quoted by Plutarch in Adv. Coloten, 1119 B; and 
of. also Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (. . . τὰ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄνειρος 
καὶ τῦφος . . 

f Cf. 943 4 ‘and 944 E-F supra. In the latter passage dpeyo- 
μένην ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ γονιμώτατον (δέχεσθαι) (cf. De H, 393 D 
[τὸ περὶ αὐτὴν γόνιμον] and Aqua an Ignis, 958 Ἐ [τοῦ πυρὸς 

. οἷον τὸ ζωτικὸν ἐνεργαζομένου]) shows that τῷ ζωτικῷ 
here is to be construed with the preceding words rather than 
with those that follow (so Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie, 
pp. 320, 329). On Reinhardt’s treatment of this passage in 
general and his attempt to derive it from Posidonius (op. cit. 
pp. 329 ff.) cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. xxvii (1932), pp. 
118-120, 129-131, 134-135; η.. Timaeus, 41-42 where the 
demiurge is said to have sowed (ἔσπειρεν) in the earth, the 
moon, and the other planets the souls that he had fashioned 
himself, 1.6. the minds (cf. 41 £, 42 9). and the interpretation 
of Timaeus Locrus, 99 p-£, according to which. this means 
that the souls are brought to earth from the various planets 
(cf. also ἢ. M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, pp. 49-51, 
and especially Porphyry in Proclus, In Timaeum, i, Ὁ. 147. 
6-13 [n.b. . . . εἰς τὸ τῆς σελήνης σῶμα σπείρεσθαί φησιν .. «| 
and p. 165. 16-23 [Diehl]). 


219 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(945) λαμβάνει δὲ τὸν νοῦν διδούς, σελήνη δὲ καὶ Aap- 
βάνει καὶ δίδωσι καὶ συντίθησι καὶ διαιρεῖ [καὶ] 
κατ᾽ ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην δύναμιν, ὧν Εἰλείθυια" μὲν ἣ 

/ ” x, a - A \ ~ 
συντίθησιν "Άρτεμις δ᾽ ἣ διαιρεῖ καλεῖται. Kal τριῶν 
Μοιρῶν ἡ μὲν "Άτροπος περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἱδρυμένη 
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνδίδωσι τῆς γενέσεως, ἡ δὲ Κλωθὼ περὶ 
τὴν σελήνην φερομένη συνδεῖ καὶ μίγνυσιν, ἐσχάτη 
δὲ συνεφάπτεται περὶ γῆν ἡ Λάχεσις ἡ πλεῖστον 
τύχης μέτεστι. τὸ γὰρ ἄψυχον ἄκυρον αὐτὸ καὶ 

\ ¢ 3 »” ¢ \ ~ 5 \ \ 3 

παθητὸν ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων, ὁ δὲ νοῦς ἀπαθὴς καὶ αὐτο- 

D κράτωρ, μικτὸν δὲ καὶ μέσον ἡ ψυχὴ καθάπερ ἡ 
σελήνη τῶν ἄνω καὶ κάτω σύμμιγμα καὶ μετα- 
κέρασμα" ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονε, τοῦτον ἄρα πρὸς 
“ ” \ / a ” ~ \ / 
ἥλιον ἔχουσα τὸν λόγον ὃν ἔχει γῆ πρὸς σελή- 
νὴν.᾿ 

καὶ -E, B; omitted by Basiliensis. 

E ; εἰλήθυια -B. 


Wyttenbach after the versions of Xylander and Amyot ; 
μέγα κέρας -E, B. 


on μ 


α Of. Quaest. Conviv. 658 F: ὅθεν οἶμαι καὶ τὴν "Αρτεμιν 
Λοχείαν καὶ Εἰλείθυιαν, οὐκ οὖσαν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν σελήνην, ὠνομά - 
σθαι. Here, however, Artemis and Ilithyia are supposed to 
be names for two contrary faculties of the moon. In 938 F 
supra the identification of the moon with Artemis because 
she is ‘‘ sterile but is helpful and beneficial to other females ”’ 
implies that Artemis /s Ilithyia, as she is in Plato’s Theaetetus, 
149 5 (ef. Cornutus, p. 73, 7-18 [Lang]). Artemis was 
associated with easy, painless death, however (cf. Odyssey, 
xi. 172-173; xviii. 202); and Plutarch probably connects 
this notion with the gentleness of the death on the moon (ef. 
943 5 supra). L.A. Post has suggested that he may also have 


220 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 945 


mind that he gives, whereas the moon both takes and 
gives and joins together and divides asunder in virtue 
of her different powers, of which the one that joins 
together is called Ilithyia and that which divides 
asunder Artemis.? Of the three Fates too Atropos 
enthroned in the sun initiates generation, Clotho in 
motion on the moon mingles and binds together, and 
finally upon the earth Lachesis too puts her hand to 
the task, she who has the largest share in chance.? 
For the inanimate is itself powerless and susceptible 
to alien agents, and the mind is impassible and sove- 
reign ; but the soul is a mixed and intermediate 
thing, even as the moon has been created by god a 
compound and blend of the things above and below 
and therefore stands to the sun in the relation of 
earth to moon.’ 


intended ἀρταμεῖν as an etymology of “Aprews. Llithyia and 
Artemis are sometimes sisters (ef. Diodorus Siculus, v. 72. 5), 
but then they have the same function. 

® In De Genio Socratis, 591 8 Atropos is situated in the 
invisible, Clotho in the sun, and Lachesis in the moon. ‘The 
order there is the same as it is here and different from that 
in the De Fato (568 πὶ. where in interpretation of Republic, 
617 c Clotho is highest, Lachesis lowest, and Atropos inter- 
mediate. Both orders differ from that of Xenocrates (frag. 5 
[Heinze]), which was Atropos (intelligible and supra- 
celestial), Lachesis (opinable and celestial), Clotho (sensible 
and sublunar). The order of De Facie and De Genio Socratis 
is that of Plato’s Laws, 960 c, where Lachesis, Clotho, and 
Atropos are named in ascending order as the epithet of 
Atropos, Τρίτη σώτειρα. shows; here in the De Facie it is the 
passage of the Republic, however, that Plutarch has in mind, 
for his συνεφάπτεται is an echo of Plato’s ἐφαπτομένην and 
ἐφάπτεσθαι there. Cf. H. Dorrie, Hermes, Ixxxii (1954), pp. 
331-342 (especially pp. 337-339), who discusses the relation of 
these passages to the pre-history of the Neoplatonic doctrine 
of hypostases and argues that in writing them Plutarch was 
inspired by Xenocrates. 


221 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


}}) ‘ 


(945) Ταῦτ᾽ ᾿᾿ εἶπεν ὁ Σύλλας “ ἐγὼ μὲν ἤκουσα τοῦ 
/ / > / > € ~ / 
ξένου διεξιόντος ἐκείνῳ δ᾽ of τοῦ Κρόνου κατευ- 
\ \ / ε ” , / >? / 
vaorat καὶ θεράποντες, ὡς ἔλεγεν αὐτός, ἐξήγ- 


γειλαν. ὑμῖν δ᾽, ὦ Λαμπρία, χρῆσθαι τῷ λόγῳ 


πάρεστιν 7) βούλεσθε. 


222 


THE FACE ON THE MOON, 945 


This,” said Sulla, “1 heard the stranger relate ; 
and he had the account, as he said himself, from the 
chamberlains and servitors of Cronus. You and your 
companions, Lamprias, may make what you will of 
the tale.”’ 4 

« Cf. De Sera Numinis Vindicta, 561 8, De Genio Socratis, 
589 Fr; Plato’s Phaedo, 114 p, Meno, 86 8, Gorgias, 527 a, 
Phaedrus, 246 a. 


223 







{»}5] aia ΘΝ a κὸν ς . 


τῶν al 


3orl opt oto ane 


ieee sayy ww fie me Piracy 


ON, (LEE, PREN CIR EE 
Or ΘΟ ΙΡ 
(DE PRIMO FRIGIDO) 


VOL. ΧΙ 1 







rm ih! ot bas nl - 
Tain ab χουν oe VOR eae 
᾿ - ἐὰν ΤΡ Ν «4 f a 


J os 


TIVIOU“IAT AHT We 
(OGIOIAT OMING g 


τον i 
᾿ an 
νος. 


ΔΝ 
ee 
a 


le 


| ἷ 3 
a el 


INTRODUCTION 


Tuis little essay, or open letter to Favorinus, is not 
written in a controversial spirit, though a few sharp 
comments are made from time to time. Having 
established (chapters 5-7) that an element of Cold 
really exists, Plutarch proceeds to consider what that 
element may be. Since fire is obviously excluded, 
can it be air, as the Stoics believe (8-12), or water, 
as Empedocles, and an early Peripatetic, Strato, hold 
(13-16) ? Or, indeed, may it be earth itself (17-22) ἢ 
This latter opinion is apparently put forward by 
Plutarch as an original contribution to theoretical 
physics and there is no reason to believe it is not his. 
The essay closes, however, with a recommendation 
to scepticism,” so that our author may not have re- 
garded his attempted proof as cogent, as indeed it is 
not. 

The work was probably written in Delphi (cf. 953 
c-p and £) after a.p. 107 (949 E, note) and addressed 
to the young philosopher Favorinus,? the great lover 
of Aristotle (Mor. 734 F), who is also a speaker in 
Symposiacs, viii. 10. Though Favorinus was in all 


« See J. Schriter, Plutarchs Stellung zur Skepsis (Greifs- 
wald, 1911), pp. 23 and 40. He compares other reeommenda- 
tions to the suspension of judgement, such as Mor. 480 r— 
431 a. Cf. also Hartman, De Plutarcho, pp. 253 f. 

> For the details see Ziegler’s article on Plutarch in Pauly- 
Wissowa, RE, col. 675. 


227 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


likelihood some twenty years younger than Plutarch, 
the two men dedicated several works to each other.* 
In the present essay it is, perhaps, odd that of the 
three quotations from Aristotle one is a rebuke (950 
B), one is apparently a partial miscitation (948 a, note), 
while the third is of no importance. No doubt it is in 
virtue of Favorinus’ youth that his idol is treated so 
lightly, and that the sceptical note is sounded so 
firmly at the end. The young Peripatetic was also 
quoted by Plutarch (for partial refutation) in Mor. 
271 c; but Plutarch (if Tarn ἢ and others are right) 
became much more favourable to Peripatetics later 
in his life (e.g. in the Life of Alexander). 

Bernardakis’s text of this work is one of his most 
unsatisfactory ; even for an editio minor it is careless 
and confused to a deplorable extent. Nor are the 
means of correcting and supplementing it at hand, 
the fifth Teubner volume being still, one fears, in 
the remote future. Then, too, the only photographs 
available were those of E and B, which are not likely 
to add much to our knowledge.* Consequently the 
only course that seemed prudent was to return to 

α Lamprias cat. 132: Plutarch’s Letter to Favorinus on 
Friendship (or The Use of Friends); Galen, de Opt. Doctr. 
(i. 41 K): Favorinus’s Plutarch, or On the Academic Dis- 
position. See also Suidas, s.v. Φαβωρῖνος. 

> Alexander the Great, ii. 298 f. 

© See the recent brisk controversy as to their relationship : 
Manton, Class. Quart. xliii (1949), pp. 97-104; Hubert, 
Rhein. Mus. xciii (1950), pp. 330-336 ; Einarson and De Lacy, 
Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 110, n. 56; Flaceliere, ed. Plutarch, 
Amatorius, pp. 35 ff. The evidence in this essay, for what it 
may be worth, seems to make it unlikely that B was here 
copied from either E or an immediate descendant; they both 
appear to go back to a common ancestor, perhaps through 
several intermediaries: see, é.g.,951 a, B,D, 953 Ε.- See now 
Cherniss supra, pp. 27, note a; 31, 32. 


228 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD 


Wyttenbach wherever there was a reasonable doubt. 
Bernardakis has been tacitly corrected (or altered, 
whichever it may be) in a good many places. This 
has been done consistently when both E and B 
agree with Wyttenbach’s and Hutten’s silence ; Ber- 
nardakis’s silence, unfortunately, appears to have no 
significance. 
The work is no. 90 in the catalogue of Lamprias. 


229 


(945) ΠΡ ΘΥΤΕΣ ree ee 


F 1. “Eove tts ἄρα τοῦ ψυχροῦ δύναμις, ὦ Φαβω- 
ρῖνε, πρώτη καὶ οὐσία, καθάπερ τοῦ θερμοῦ τὸ 
πῦρ, ἧς παρουσίᾳ τινὶ καὶ μετοχῇ γίνεται τῶν 
ἄλλων € ἕκαστον ψυχρόν" ἣ μᾶλλον ἡ 7) ψυχρότης στέ- 
ρησίς ἐστι θερμότητος, ὥσπερ τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ σκότος 
λέγουσι καὶ Tis κινήσεως τὴν στάσιν; ἐπεὶ καὶ 
τὸ ψυχρὸν ἔοικε στάσιμον εἶναι, κινητικὸν δὲ τὸ 

946 θερμόν: at τε τῶν θερμῶν καταψύξεις οὐδεμιᾶς 
παρουσίᾳ γίνονται δυνάμεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκστάσει θερμό- 
τητος: ἅμα γὰρ ἀπιοῦσ᾽ ὅλη" φαίνεται καὶ ψύχεται 
τὸ ὑπολειπόμενον: ὁ γὰρ ἀτμός, ὃν τὰ ζέοντα τῶν 
ὑδάτων μεθίησιν, ἀπιόντι τῷ θερμῷ συνεκπίπτει" 
διὸ καὶ μειοῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἡ 7) περίψυξις ἐ ἐκκρίνουσα τὸ 
edge ἑτέρου μηδενὸς ἐ ἐπεισιόντος. 

Ἢ πρῶτον μὲν ἂν τις ὑπίδοιτο τοῦ λόγου τού- 
του τὸ πολλὰς τῶν ἐμφανῶν ἀναιρεῖν δυνάμεων, ὡς 
οὐ ποιότητας οὐδ᾽ ἕξεις. ἕξεων. δὲ καὶ ποιοτήτων 
στερήσεις οὔσας, βαρύτητα μὲν κουφότητος καὶ 
σκληρότητα μαλακότητος, τὸ μέλαν δὲ τοῦ λευκοῦ 

Β καὶ τὸ πικρὸν τοῦ γλυκέος, καὶ ὧν ἕκαστον ἑκάστῳ 
πέφυκεν ἀντικεῖσθαι κατὰ δύναμιν, οὐχ ὡς ἕξει 
στέρησις" ἔπειθ᾽ ὅτι πᾶσα στέρησις ἀργόν ἐστι καὶ 

1 πρώτως Meziriacus : πρώτου. 

τ ὅλη Meziriacus : πολλὴ: Wyttenbach writes ἅμα γὰρ 

ἀπιούσῃ πολλῇ. 

3 οὔσας added by Hartman, 


230 


ON “THE PRINCIPLE OF COED 


1. Is there, then, Favorinus,” an active principle or 
substance of Cold (as fire is of Heat) through the 
presence of which and through participation in which 
everything else becomes cold ? Or is coldness rather 
a negation of warmth, as they say darkness is of light 
and rest of motion ? Cold, indeed, seems to have the 
quality of being stationary, as heat has that of motion; 
while the cooling off of hot things is not caused by the 
presence of any force,’ but merely by the displace- 
ment of heat, for it can be seen to depart completely 
at the same time as the remainder cools off. The 
steam, for example, which boiling water emits, is 
expelled in company with the departing heat ; that 
is why the amount becomes less by cooling off; for 
this removes the heat and nothing else takes its place. 

2. First of all, must we not be wary of one point in 
this argument ? It eliminates many obvious forces 
by considering them not to be qualities or properties, 
but merely the negation of qualities or properties, 
weight being the negation of lightness and hardness 
that of softness, black that of white, and bitter that 
of sweet, and so in any other case where there is a 
natural opposition of forces rather than a relation 
of positive and negative. Another point is that all 
negation is inert and unproductive: blindness, for 


2 See the introduction to this essay. 
> As, for instance, the force of fire. 


to 
O9 
μι 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(946) ἄπρακτον, ὡς τυφλότης καὶ κωφότης καὶ σιωπὴ 
καὶ θάνατος; ἐκστάσεις γάρ εἰσιν εἰδῶν καὶ ἀν- 
αιρέσεις οὐσιῶν, οὐ φύσεις τινὲς οὐδ᾽ οὐσίαι Kal? 
ἑαυτάς: ἡ δὲ ψυχρότης οὐκ ἐλάττονα τῆς θερμότητος 
ἐγγινομένη τοῖς σώμασι πάθη καὶ μεταβολὰς ἐν- 
εργάζεσθαι πέφυκε: καὶ γὰρ πήγνυται πολλὰ τῷ 
ψυχρῷ καὶ συγκρίνεται καὶ πυκνοῦται: καὶ τὸ στά- 

Ο σιμον αὐτῷ καὶ δυσκίνητον οὐκ ἀργόν ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ 
>? \ \ / « \ tw 4 \ \ 
ἐμβριθὲς Kat βέβαιον, ὑπὸ ῥώμης συνερειστικὸν καὶ 
συνεκτικὸν ἐχούσης τόνον. ὅθεν ἡ μὲν στέρησις 
ἔκλειψις γίνεται καὶ ὑποχώρησις τῆς ἀντικειμένης 
δυνά j ὲ πολλὰ πολλῆς αὐτοῖς θερμό 
υνάμεως, ψύχεται δὲ πολλὰ πολλῆς αὐτοῖς θερμό- 

Uj ~ 
τητος ἐνυπαρχούσης᾽ ἔνια δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον ἡ ψυ- 
χρότης, ἂν λάβῃ θερμότερα, πήγνυσι καὶ συνάγει, 
καθάπερ τὸν βαπτόμενον σίδηρον" οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ καὶ 
τὸ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν βρεφῶν τῇ 
, A \ , > , 1 
περιψύξει στομοῦσθαι καὶ μεταβάλλον ἐκ φύσεως 

/ / 3 \ ~ \ > / 

γίνεσθαι ψυχήν: ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν ἀμφισβητήσιμον, 
ἑτέρων δὲ πολλῶν τὴν ψυχρότητα φαινομένην δη- 

μιουργὸν οὐκ ἄξιον ἡγεῖσθαι στέρησιν. 

” / \ > / / \ ~ 

ἢ 3. Ἔτι στέρησις μὲν οὐδεμία δέχεται τὸ μᾶλλον 
καὶ τὸ ἧττον, οὐδ᾽ ἂν εἴποι τις ἕτερον ἑτέρου μᾶλ- 
λον πεπηρῶσθαι τῶν μὴ βλεπόντων ἢ σιωπᾶν τῶν 
μὴ φθεγγομένων ἢ τεθνάναι τῶν μὴ ζώντων. ἐν δὲ 
τοῖς ψυχροῖς πολὺ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον ἔνεστι 
καὶ τὸ λίαν καὶ τὸ μὴ λίαν καὶ ὅλως ἐπιτάσεις καὶ 


1 φύσεως] ψύξεως van Herwerden from Mor. 1052 F. 


« As steam is condensed and oil becomes viscous. 
> The verb is ambiguous: ‘* become cold ” or “ dry ” 
perhaps “᾿ congealed.”’ 


232 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 946 


example, and deafness, silence or death. Here you 
have the defection of a definite form and the annihila- 
tion of a reality, not something that is in itself a part 
of nature or reality. It is the nature of coldness, 
however, to produce affects and alterations in bodies 
that it enters no less than those caused by heat. 
Many objects can be frozen solid, or become con- 
densed or made viscous, by cold.* Moreover, the 
property whereby coldness promotes rest and resists 
motion is not inert, but acts by pressure and resis- 
tance, being constrictive and preservative because of 
its strength. This explains how, though negation is a 
disappearance and departure of the contrary force, 
many things may yet become ὃ cold while all the time 
containing within themselves considerable warmth. 
There are even some objects which cold solidifies and 
consolidates the more readily the hotter they are: 
steel, for example, plungedin water. The Stoics ° also 
affirm that in the bodies of infant children the breath is 
tempered by cooling and, from being a physical sub- 
stance, becomes a soul. This, however, is debatable ; 
yet since there are many other effects which may be 
seen to be produced through the agency of cold, we 
are not justified in regarding it as a negation. 

3. Besides, a negation does not permit degrees of 
less or more. Surely nobody will affirm that one blind 
man is blinder than another, or one dumb man more 
silent than another, or one corpse deader than its 
fellow ; but among cold things there is a wide range 
of deviation from much to little, from very cold to not 
very, and, generally speaking, in degrees of intensity 

¢ Cf. Mor. 1052 ἘΠ: von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 134, 222 ; 
and see Hartman’s explanation, De Plutarcho, p. 566. Von 


Arnim thinks that the next five chapters also contain Stoic 
material. 


233 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


σ A ~ 
(946) ἀνέσεις, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς θερμοῖς, διὰ τὸ τὴν ὕλην 
lon ~ ’ ~ 
πῇ μὲν σφόδρα πῇ δ᾽ ἠρέμα πάσχουσαν ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἐναντίων δυνάμεων ἕτερα μᾶλλον ἑτέρων καὶ θερ- 
μότερα καὶ ψυχρότερα παρέχειν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς. καὶ 

, A 

yap ἕξεως μὲν οὐκ ἔστι μῖξις πρὸς στέρησιν οὐδ᾽ 
ΝΥ ΄ 
E ἀναδέχεται δύναμις οὐδεμία τὴν ἀντικειμένην αὐτῇ 
στέρησιν ἐπιοῦσαν" οὐδὲ ποιεῖ κοινωνὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἀντεξ- 
ίσταται: θερμὰ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἄχρι οὗ κεραννύμενα ψυχροῖς 
ὑπομένει, καθάπερ μέλανα λευκοῖς καὶ βαρέσιν ὀξέα 

\ / » / ,ὔ ~ ͵ὔ 
καὶ γλυκέσιν αὐστηρά, παρέχοντα τῇ κοινωνίᾳ 
ταύτῃ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ χρωμάτων τε καὶ φθόγγων καὶ 

7 \ Μ - \ \ 
φαρμάκων καὶ ὄψων προσφιλεῖς πολλὰς Kat φιλ- 
ανθρώπους γενέσεις. 

ι \ \ \ ,ὔ \ “ > / 

Η μὲν yap κατὰ στέρησιν καὶ ἕξιν ἀντίθεσις 
πολεμικὴ καὶ ἀσύμβατός ἐστιν, οὐσίαν θατέρου τὴν 
θατέρου φθορὰν ἔχοντος: τῇ δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐναντίας 

/ ~ / \ \ « / 

F δυνάμεις καιροῦ τυχούσῃ πολλὰ μὲν αἱ τέχναι 

“ A > ¢ / ” a“ » 
χρῶνται, πλεῖστα δ᾽ ἡ φύσις ἔν τε ταῖς ἄλλαις 
γενέσεσι καὶ ταῖς περὶ τὸν ἀέρα τροπαῖς, καὶ ὅσα 
διακοσμῶν καὶ βραβεύων ὁ θεὸς ἁρμονικὸς καλεῖται 
καὶ μουσικός, οὐ βαρύτητας συναρμόττων καὶ ὀξύ- 

> \ \ \ / / « ~ 

τητας οὐδὲ λευκὰ καὶ μέλανα συμφώνως ὁμιλοῦντα 

2 5 7 Ψ \ \ ~ / \ 

παρέχων ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῆς θερμότητος καὶ 

ψυχρότητος ἐν κόσμῳ κοινωνίαν καὶ διαφοράν, ὅπως 

συνοίσονταί τε μετρίως καὶ διοίσονται πάλιν, ἐπι- 

τροπεύων καὶ τὸ ἄγαν ἑκατέρας ἀφαιρῶν εἰς τὸ 
δέον ἀμφοτέρας καθίστησι. 

947 4. Καὶ μὴν ψυχροῦ μὲν αἴσθησις ἔστιν, ὥσπερ 

1 +6 added by Meziriacus. 


2 ἐπιοῦσαν Madvig: ἐμποιοῦσαν. 
O2 


“Θ᾽ 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 946-947 


and remission, just as there is in hot things. This 
occurs because the matter involved is in different cases 
acted upon by the opposing forces with more or less 
intensity ; it thus exhibits degrees of one or the other, 
and so of hot and cold. There is, in fact, no such 
thing as a blending of positive qualities with negative 
ones, nor may any positive force accept the assault 
of the negation that corresponds to it or take it into 
partnership ; instead it gives place to it. Now hot 
things do admit a blending with cold up to a point, 
just as do black with white, high notes with low, sweet 
tastes with sour; and this harmonious association 
of colours and sounds, drugs and sauces, produces 
many combinations that are pleasant and grateful 
to the senses. 

For the opposition of a negation to a positive 
quality is an irreconcilable hostility, since the exist- 
ence of the one is the annihilation of the other. The 
other opposition, however, of positive forces, if it 
occurs in due measure, is often operative in the arts, 
and very often indeed in various phenomena of 
nature, especially in connexion with the weather 
and the seasons and those matters from which the 
god derives his title of harmonizer and musician, 
because he organizes and regulates them. He does 
not receive these names merely for bringing sounds 
of high and low pitch, or black and white colours, into 
harmonious fellowship, but because he has authority 
over the association and disunion of heat and cold in 
the universe, to see that they observe due measure 
in their combination and separation, and because, by 
eliminating the excess of either, he brings both into 
proper order. 

4, Furthermore, we find that cold can be perceived 


235 


(947) 


Ge 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ ~ / > #1)? 6 \ ” 9 > \ 
καὶ θερμοῦ: στέρησις δ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ὁρατὸν οὔτ᾽ ἀκουστὸν 
»“Ω» ς \ ” a Μ > / / 
οὔθ᾽ ἁπτὸν οὔτε ταῖς ἄλλαις αἰσθήσεσι γνωστόν. 
οὐσίας γάρ τινος αἴσθησις ἦν: ὅπου δ᾽ οὐσία μὴ 
φαίνεται, νοεῖται στέρησις, οὐσίας ἀπόφασις οὖσα, 

/ Μ / \ ~ \ . 
καθάπερ ὄψεως τυφλότης καὶ φωνῆς σιωπὴ καὶ 
σώματος ἐρημία καὶ κενόν. οὔτε γὰρ κενοῦ bv 
x - " ” > ee A \ / / 
ἁφῆς αἴσθησις ἔστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπου "μὴ γίνεται σώματος 
ἁφή, κενοῦ γίνεται νόησις" οὔτε σιγῆς ἀκούομεν, 
ἀλλά, κἂν μηδενὸς ἀκούωμεν, σιγὴν νοοῦμεν" ὡς 
δ᾽ αὔτως καὶ τυφλῶν καὶ γυμνῶν' οὐκ αἴσθησις 
” 5 > > / > / 2 ‘4 ” 
ἔστιν ἀλλ᾽ αἰσθήσεως ἀποφάσει" νόησις. ἔδει 

/ \ / ~ ” > > a A 
τοίνυν μὴ γίνεσθαι ψυχρῶν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπου τὸ 
θερμὸν ἐπιλείπει νοεῖσθαι τὸ ψυχρόν, εἴπερ ἦν 
~ “4 
θερμοῦ στέρησις" εἰ δ᾽, ὥσπερ TO θερμὸν ἀλέᾳ καὶ 
~ / 
διακρίσει τῆς σαρκός, οὕτω συγκρίσει καὶ πυ- 
κνώσει τὸ ψυχρὸν αἰσθητόν ἐστι, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ 
\ 
ψυχρότητος ἰδία τις ἔστιν ἀρχὴ Kal πηγὴ καθάπερ 

7 

θερμότητος. 

ee Dr , ? A Pe A ¢ . ὦ 

Ere τοίνυν ἕν τι καὶ ἁπλοῦν ἡ περὶ ἕκαστον 
> , ¢ ς» > 7 ͵ \ \ 
εἶδος στέρησις, at δ᾽ οὐσίαι πλείονας διαφορὰς καὶ 
δυνάμεις ἔχουσι: μονοειδὲς γὰρ ἡ σιωπὴ ποικίλον 
δ᾽ ἡ φωνή, νῦν μὲν ἐνοχλοῦσα νῦν δὲ τέρπουσα 
τὴν αἴσθησιν. ἔχει δὲ τοιαύτας καὶ τὰ χρώματα 
\ \ oe / > ἔν + > Μ \ 
Kal TA σχήματα διαφοράς, ev αἷς ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλως τὸν 
προστυγχάνοντα διατίθησι" τὸ δ᾽ ἀναφὲς καὶ ἄχρω- 
\ ΄“ Μ 3 » / > 3 
στον καὶ ὅλως ἄποιον οὐκ ἔχει διαφοράν, ἀλλ 

ὅμοιόν ἐστιν. 
6. *Ap’ οὖν ἔοικε τοῖς στερητικοῖς τούτοις τὸ 


1 After γυμνῶν the mss. add καὶ ἀνόπλων : deleted by 
WICGPR 


236 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 947 


as well as heat ; but mere negation cannot be seen or 
heard or touched or recognized by the other senses. 
Perception, in fact, must be of something existent ; 
but where nothing existent is observed, privation may 
be inferred, being the negation of existence, as blind- 
ness is of sight, silence of sound, void and emptiness 
-of matter. We cannot perceive a void by touch; but 
where no matter can be touched, void is inferred. 
Nor can we hear silence ; yet, even though we hear 
nothing, we infer silence. Nor, in the same way, is 
sense active when things are unseen or bare 7; there 
is, rather, inference from the negation of Mea Ue rn 
If, therefore, cold were a privation of warmth, 
ought not to be able to feel it, but only to ee i 
from the deficiency in warmth ἢ but if cold is per- 
ceived by the contraction and ΘΟ ΔΕ πέση of our 
flesh (just as heat is by the warming and loosening 
of it), clearly there is some special first principle and 
source of coldness, just as there is of heat. 

5. And yet another point : privation of any sort is 
something simple and uncomplicated, whereas sub- 
stances have many differences and powers. Silence, 
for example, is of only one kind, while sound varies, 
sometimes annoying, at other times delighting, the 
perception. Both colours and figures show the same 
variation, for they produce different effects on dif- 
ferent occasions when they meet the eye; but that 
which cannot be touched and is without colour or any 
quality whatever, admits no difference, but is always 
the same. 

6. Is cold, then, so like this sort of privation that 


As, when a hill has been stripped of timber, you cannot 
see the Etees- 





2 ἀποφάσει Nylander: ἀπόφασις. 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(947) ψυχρόν, ὥστε μὴ ποιεῖν ἐν τοῖς πάθεσι διαφοράν; 
ἢ τοὐναντίον ἡδοναί τε μεγάλαι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι τοῖς 
͵ὕὔ 5 \ ~ c / A ’ὔ / 
σώμασιν ἀπὸ ψυχρῶν ὑπάρχουσι Kat βλάβαι πάλιν 
νεανικαὶ καὶ πόνοι καὶ βαρύτητες, ὑφ᾽ ὧν οὐκ ἀεὶ 
4, \ > Ψ \ \ 5 A / 
φεύγει Kat ἀπολείπει τὸ θερμὸν ἀλλὰ πολλάκις 
ἐγκαταλαμβανόμενον ἀνθίσταται καὶ μάχεται, τῇ 

~ / 
μάχῃ δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὄνομα φρίκη Kat τρόμος, ἡττωμένῳ 
δὲ τῷ θερμῷ τὸ πήγνυσθαι καὶ ναρκᾶν ἐπιγίνεται, 

~ \ ~ ~ / / \ > /, 
D κρατοῦν δὲ τοῦ ψυχροῦ διάχυσιν παρέχει καὶ ἀλέαν 
~ ͵ 5» [ὦ ~ [2 ΄“ ΚΕ / ᾽}ὔ 

τῷ σώματι μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς, ὅπερ “Ὅμηρος ἰαίνεσθαι 

/ 5 \ ~ / \ ~ \ / 
κέκληκεν; ἀλλὰ ταῦτά ye παντὶ δῆλα: καὶ τούτοις 
οὐχ ἥκιστα τοῖς πάθεσιν ἐνδείκνυται τὸ ψυχρόν, 
ὅτι πρὸς τὸ θερμὸν ὡς οὐσία πρὸς οὐσίαν ἢ πάθος 
πρὸς πάθος οὐχ ὡς ἀπόφασις ἀντίκειται καὶ στέ- 
>) \ / / > ~ ~ \ 5 7 
pyois, οὐδὲ φθορά τίς ἐστι τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ ἀναί- 
Ty 5 1 7 \ 7 n \ \ 
ρεσις ἀλλ᾽ ὑπαρκτὴ᾽ φύσις καὶ δύναμις. ἢ καὶ TOV 
χειμῶνα τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ τὰ βόρεια τῶν πνευμάτων 
ἐξέλωμεν, ὡς στερήσεις ὄντα τῶν θερμῶν καὶ 
/ » / » 5 \ , » 
E νοτίων, ἰδίαν δ᾽ ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχοντα. 

~ > 
7. Kat μὴν τεττάρων ye τῶν πρώτων ὄντων ἐν 
τῷ παντὶ σωμάτων, ἃ διὰ πλῆθος καὶ ἁπλότητα 
καὶ δύναμιν οἱ πλεῖστοι στοιχεῖα τῶν ἄλλων ὑπο- 
τίθενται καὶ ἀρχάς, πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος 
καὶ γῆς, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ ποιότητας εἶναι τὰς 
πρώτας καὶ ἁπλᾶς τοσαύτας. τίνες οὖν εἰσιν αὗ- 


ται πλὴν θερμότης καὶ ψυχρότης καὶ ξηρότης 


1 ὑπαρκτὴ W. C. H. after Madvig: φθαρτικὴ. 





@ See, e.g., Odyssey, vi. 156; Iliad, xxiii. 598, 600; and 
cf. Mor. 454 νυ, 735 F. 


238 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 947 


it produces no effects that differ ? Or is the contrary 
true: Do not great and useful pleasures accrue to 
our bodies from the presence of cold, as well as mighty 
detriments and pains and depressions, before which 
the heat does not always depart and quit the field ? 
Often, rather, though cut off within, it makes a stand 
and gives battle. This struggle of hot and cold is 
called shivering or shaking ; and if heat is overcome, 
freezing and torpor set in; but if cold is defeated, 
there is diffused through the body a relaxed and 
pleasantly warm sensation which Homer “ calls “ to 
be aglow.” Surely these facts are obvious to every- 
one ; and it is chiefly by these effects that cold is 
shown to be in opposition to heat, not as a negation 
or privation, but as one substance or one state ὃ to 
another : it is not a mere destruction or abolition of 
heat, but a positive substance or force. Otherwise 
we might just as well exclude winter from the list 
of seasons or the northerly blasts from that of winds, 
on the pretext that they are only a deficiency of hot 
weather or southerly gales and have no proper origin 
of their own. 

7. Furthermore, given four primary bodies in the 
universe © which, because of their quantity, sim- 
plicity, and potentiality, most judges regard as being 
the elements or first principles of everything else— 
I mean fire, water, air, and earth—the number of 
primary, simple qualities must be the same. And 
what should these be but warmth and cold, dryness 


» Heat, for example, may be said to be a “‘ state”’ or con- 
dition of metal. 

¢ See Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, pp. 315 ff., Em- 
pedocles, frag. B 17. The doctrine is clearly stated by, for 
example, Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 10. The author of the Epinomis 
(981 c) adds a fifth element, aether (cf. 951 pv infra). 


239 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(947) καὶ ὑγρότης, αἷς" τὰ στοιχεῖα πάσχειν ἅπαντα καὶ 
ποιεῖν πέφυκεν; ὡς δὲ τῶν ἐν γραμματικῇ στοι- 
χείων βραχύτητές εἰσι καὶ μακρότητες, τῶν δ᾽ ἐν 

F μουσικῇ βαρύτητες καὶ ὀξύτητες, οὐ θάτερα τῶν 
ἑτέρων στέρησις, οὕτως ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς σώμασιν 
ἀντιστοιχίαν" ὑποληπτέον ὑγρῶν πρὸς ξηρὰ καὶ 
ψυχρῶν πρὸς θερμά, τὸ κατὰ λόγον ἅμα καὶ τὰ 
φαινόμενα διαφυλάττοντας" ἢ, καθάπερ ᾿Αναξι- 
μένης ὁ παλαιὸς ᾧετο, μήτε τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐν οὐσίᾳ 
μήτε τὸ θερμὸν ἀπολείπωμεν, ἀλλὰ πάθη κοινὰ τῆς 
ὕλης ἐπιγινόμενα ταῖς μεταβολαῖς; τὸ γὰρ συστελ- 
λόμενον αὐτῆς καὶ πυκνούμενον ψυχρὸν εἶναί φησι, 
τὸ δ᾽ ἀραιὸν καὶ τὸ χαλαρόν. (οὕτω πως ὀνομάσας" 
τῷ ῥήματι), θερμόν. ὅθεν οὐκ ἀπεικότως λέγεσθαι 
τὸ καὶ θερμὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος καὶ 

948 ψυχρὰ μεθιέναι" ψύχεται γὰρ ἡ πνοὴ πιεσθεῖσα καὶ 
πυκνωθεῖσα τοῖς χείλεσιν, ἀνειμένου δὲ τοῦ στό- 
ματος ἐκπίπτουσα γίνεται θερμὸν ὑπὸ _pavernros. 
τοῦτο μὲν οὖν ἀγνόημα ποιεῖται τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ὁ 
᾿Αριστοτέλης" ἀνειμένου γὰρ τοῦ στόματος ἐκ- 
πνεῖσθαι τὸ θερμὸν ἐξ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, ὅταν δὲ συ- 
στρέψαντες τὰ χείλη φυσήσωμεν, οὐ τὸν ἐξ ἡμῶν, 
ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀέρα τὸν πρὸ τοῦ στόματος ὠθεῖσθαι 
ψυχρὸν ὄντα καὶ προσεμπίπτειν. 


- αἷς] ἃς Post, deleting καὶ after ἅπαντα. 
: ἀντιστοιχίαν Meziriacus : ἀντιστοιχείων. 
3 καὶ after ὀνομάσας deleted by Hartman. 





α Post translates his emendation: ‘‘ by which all things 
are qualified through the natural action of the elements,”’ 
pointing out that elements have nothing but size, shape, and 
motion. Fire causes heat, but its atoms are not themselves 


hot. 
240 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 947-948 


and moisture, which by their very nature cause all 
the elements to act and be acted upon? Just as in 
grammar we have elements long and short and in 
music elements high and low in pitch—and in neither 
case is one element merely a negation of the other— 
so also in physical bodies we must assume an ele- 
mentary opposition of wet to dry and cold to hot, and 
in this way we shall be faithful both to logic and to 
experience. Or are we, as old Anaximenes? main- 
tained, to leave neither hot nor cold in the realm of 
being, but to treat them as states belonging equally 
to any matter and occurring as a result of changes 
within it? He affirms, in fact, that anything which 
undergoes contraction and condensation of matter 
is cold, while anything that suffers rarefaction and 
distention—this comes close to his own phrasing—is 
hot. So there is no contradiction in the remark that 
the man blew both hot and cold,° for breath grows 
cold when it is compressed and condensed by the lips ; 
but when it is expelled from the mouth left slack, it 
becomes hot through rarefaction. Aristotle,’ how- 
ever, holds that in this Anaximenes was mistaken : 
when the mouth is slack, what is exhaled is warm air 
from our own bodies; but when we compress the 
lips and blow, it is not air from ourselves, but the cold 
air in front of the mouth that is propelled forward and 
makes contact. 


® Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.®, i, p. 953 cf. Diller, 
Hermes, Ixvii, pp. 35 f. 

¢ See Aesop’s Fables (no. 60 in Chambry’s Budé edition, 
vol. i, pp. 131 ff.), where the satyr renounces friendship with 
the man because the latter blows both hot and cold through 
the same mouth. 

4 Probably (cf. the note on 950 B infra) Problemata, xxxiv. 
7 (964 a 10 ff.) ; contrast Plato, Timaeus, 79 a-c. 


241 


(948) 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


8. Ed δ᾽ ἀπολειπτέον οὐσίαν ψυχροῦ Kai θερμοῦ, 
~ -“ 

προάγωμεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἑξῆς τὸν λόγον, ἥτις ἐστὶν οὐσία 
καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ φύσις ψυχρότητος, ζητοῦντες" ot μὲν 
οὖν, τῶν σκαληνῶν καὶ τριγωνοειδῶν σχηματισμῶν 
ἐν τοῖς σώμασι κειμένων, τὸ ῥιγοῦν καὶ τρέμειν 
καὶ φρίττειν καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ τοῖς πάθεσι τούτοις 
ὑπὸ τραχύτητος ἐγγίνεσθαι λέγοντες, εἰ καὶ τοῖς 
κατὰ μέρος διαμαρτάνουσι, τὴν γοῦν ἀρχὴν ὅθεν δεῖ 
λαμβάνουσι: δεῖ γὰρ ὥσπερ ἀφ᾽ ἑστίας τῆς τῶν 
ὅλων οὐσίας ἄρχεσθαι τὴν ζήτησιν. ᾧ καὶ μάλιστα 
δόξειεν ἂν ἰατροῦ καὶ γεωργοῦ καὶ αὐλητοῦ δια- 
/ ¢ / > / \ \ > A \ 
φέρειν ὁ φιλόσοφος. ἐκείνοις μὲν yap ἐξαρκεῖ τὰ 
ἔσχατα τῶν αἰτίων θεωρῆσαι: τὸ γὰρ ἐγγυτάτω 
τοῦ πάθους αἴτιον ἂν συνοφθῇ, πυρετοῦ μὲν ἔντασις" 
BD / > / 5” nA r A > 9 
ἢ παρέμπτωσις, ἐρυσίβης δ᾽ ἥλιοι πυριφλεγεῖς ἐπ 
ὄμβρῳ, βαρύτητος δὲ κλίσις αὐλῶν καὶ συναγωγὴ 
πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἱκανόν ἐστι τῷ τεχνίτῃ πρὸς τὸ 
οἰκεῖον ἔργον. τῷ δὲ φυσικῷ θεωρίας ἕνεκα με- 
τιόντι τἀληθὲς ἡ τῶν ἐσχάτων γνῶσις οὐ τέλος 

2 \ > > > \ a > \ \ ~ \ > / 
ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀρχὴ τῆς ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα Kal ἀνωτάτω 
7 ὃ \ \ IIA / > θ ~ \ / 3 
πορείας. διὸ καὶ [lAdtwv ὀρθῶς καὶ Δημόκριτος 

\ ~ 
αἰτίαν θερμότητος Kat βαρύτητος ζητοῦντες οὐ 
a \ 
κατέπαυσαν ἐν γῇ Kal πυρὶ τὸν λόγον ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὰς 
1 κειμένων] σειομένων Sandbach. 


2 ἔντασις] ἔνστασις Turnebus from Galen. 
3 Δημόκριτος] Ξενοκράτης Wyttenbach. 





° Cf. Plato, Timaeus, 53 c, 54 B-c. 

Ὁ Or, perhaps, “* with Hestia,” as the first principle of the 
cosmos (see, for example, Ritter, on Plato, Phaedrus, 247 a, 
pp. 123-124 of his edition). This passage is somewhat obscurely 
quoted below in 954 r. There were already three different 


242 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 948 


8. Perhaps we should now leave the question 
whether heat and cold are substances ; if so, let us 
advance the argument to the next point and inquire 
what sort of substance coldness has, and what is its 
first principle and nature. Now those who affirm 
that there are certain uneven, triangular formations 
in our bodies“ and that shivering and trembling, 
shuddering and the like manifestations, proceed from 
this rough irregularity, even if they are wrong in the 
particulars, at least derive the first principle from 
the proper place ; for the investigation should begin, 
as it were from the very hearth,’ from the substance 
of all things. This is, it would seem, the great differ- 
ence between a philosopher and a physician or a 
farmer or a flute-player; for the latter are content 
to examine the causes most remote from the first 
cause, since as soon as the most immediate cause of 
an effect is grasped—that fever is brought about by 
exertion or an overflow of blood, that rusting of grain 
is caused by days of blazing sun after a rain, that a 
low note is produced by the angle and construction 
of the pipes—that is enough to enable a technician 
to do his proper job. But when the natural philo- 
sopher sets out to find the truth as a matter of specu- 
lative knowledge, the discovery of immediate causes 
is not the end, but the beginning of his journey to 
the first and highest causes. This is the reason why 
Plato and Democritus, when they were inquiring 
into the causes of heat and heaviness, were right not 
to stop their investigation with earth and fire, but 


interpretations known to the scholiast on Plato, Huthyphro, 
3 a (p. 2, ed. Greene). 
¢ Wyttenbach suggested “ἡ Xenocrates”’ for ‘‘ Demo- 
critus ’’ in this passage, which may be right, though his pro- 
posal is not considered by either Mullach or Heinze. 
243 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(948) νοητὰς ἀναφέροντες ἀρχὰς τὰ arses μέχρι τῶν 
ἐλαχίστων ὥσπερ σπερμάτων προῆ 
9. Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ ner: προανα- 
Ξ 7, , > > e 9 ᾿Ξ \ 
κινῆσαι βέλτιόν ἐστιν, ev ois ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ 
/ \ ¢ \ \ > / / ~ 
D Στράτων καὶ ot Στωικοὶ τὰς οὐσίας τίθενται τῶν 
δυνάμεων, οὗ μὲν Στωικοὶ τῷ ἀέρι τὸ πρώτως ψυ- 
\ > / > ~ \ \ / 
xpov ἀποδιδόντες, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ καὶ Στράτων 
τῷ ὕδατι: τὴν δὲ γῆν ἴσως ἂν ἕτερος φανείη ψυ- 
χρότητος οὐσίαν ὑποτιθέμενος. πρότερον δὲ τὰ 
ἐκείνων σκοπῶμεν. 
3 \ \ ~ \ Ld \ ’ >’ A 
Ἐπεὶ τὸ πῦρ θερμὸν ἅμα καὶ λαμπρόν ἐστι, δεῖ 
τὴν ἀντικειμένην τῷ πυρὶ φύσιν ψυχράν τ᾽ εἶναι 
καὶ σκοτεινήν" ἀντίκειται γὰρ ὡς τῷ "λαμπρῷ τὸ 
ζοφερόν, οὕτω τῷ θερμῷ τὸ ψυχρόν" ἔστι γὰρ ὡς 
ὄψεως τὸ σκοτεινόν, οὕτω τὸ ψυχρὸν ἁφῆς συγ- 
χυτικόν: ἡ δὲ θερμότης διαχεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν τοῦ 
ἁπτομένου καθάπερ ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ ὁρῶντος. τὸ 
E ἄρα πρώτως σκοτεινὸν ἐν τῇ φύσει πρώτως καὶ 
ψυχρόν ἐστιν. ὅτι δ᾽ ἀὴρ τὸ πρώτως σκοτεινόν 
> τὰ \ \ \ / »» \ \ 
ἐστιν, οὐδὲ τοὺς ποιητὰς λέληθεν: ἀέρα yap TO 
σκότος καλοῦσιν" 


ae 


ἀὴρ yap παρὰ νηυσὶ βαθὺς" ἦν, οὐδὲ σελήνη 


οὐρανόθεν προύφαινε.᾽ . 


\ / 
και πάλιν 


ce 


9' ε / “. A : ee s 992 
NHEpa εσσαμέενοι πασαν φοιτῶσιν ΕἼ AlaV. 


1 mss. of Homer have περὶ and βαθεῖ". 
2 καὶ πάλιν. .. αἷαν are omitted by most mss. and are 
unknown to Wyttenbach. 





¢ Of. Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, p. 319, frag. B 21, 
part of which is quoted below in 949 r. 


244: 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 948 


to go on carrying back sensible phenomena to rational 
origins until they reached, as it were, the minimum 
number of seeds. 

9. Nevertheless it is better for us first to attack 
things perceptible to the senses, in which Empedocles “ 
and Strato ὃ and the Stoics ὁ locate the substances 
that underlie the qualities, the Stoics ascribing the 
primordially cold to the air, Empedocles and Strato 
to water ; and someone else may, perhaps, be found 
to affirm that earth is the original substance of cold- 
ness.?. But let us examine Stoic doctrine before the 
others. 

Since fire is not only warm but bright, the opposite 
natural entity (they say) must be both cold and dark : 
as gloomy is the opposite of bright, so is cold of hot. 
Besides, as darkness confounds the sight, so cold 
confuses the sense of touch. Heat, on the other hand, 
transmits the sensation of touching, as brightness 
does that of seeing. It follows, then, that in nature 
the primordially dark is also the primordially cold ; 
and that it is air which is primordially dark does not, 
in fact, escape the notice of the poets since they use 
the term “ air’”’ for “ darkness ”’ : 


Thick air lay all about the ships, nor could 
The moon shine forth from heaven. ¢ 


And another instance : 


So clad in air they visit all the earth.’ 


δ See Fritz Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, Part V, 
frag. 49. 

¢ Of. Mor. 952 c, 1053 πὸ: von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 140 f. 

@ As Plutarch himself; see below, 952 ὁ ff. (chapters 17-22). 

¢ Homer, Odyssey, ix. 144-145. Words for “ air’ in Homer 
often mean “ mist” or “ fog.” 

7 Hesiod, Works and Days, 255. 


245 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(948) καὶ πάλιν 
‘ > / > 77 \ / \ > ~ 
αὐτίκα δ᾽ ἠέρα μὲν σκέδασεν καὶ ἀπῶσεν 
ὁμίχλην, 
ἠέλιος δ᾽ ἐπέλαμψε, μάχη δ᾽ ἐπὶ πᾶσα φαάνθη.᾽᾽ 
\ \ ce / ) \ > / 35» ~ 
καὶ yap “‘ κνέφας ᾿᾿ tov ἀφώτιστον ἀέρα καλοῦσι, 
/ «ς ΝΜ / ΝΜ , &f / >?) « 
κενόν, ὡς ἔοικε, φάους ὄντα: καὶ “᾿ νέφος ᾿᾿ ὁ συμ- 
\ \ \ 28 > / \ / 

F πεσὼν καὶ πυκνωθεὶς ἀὴρ ἀποφάσει φωτὸς KéKAn- 
ται: κνηκὶς δὲ καὶ ἀχλὺς καὶ ὁμίχλη καὶ ὅσα τοῦ 
φωτὸς οὐ παρέχει τῇ αἰσθήσει δίοψιν ἀέρος εἰσὶ 

/ \ \ > \ > ~ \ Μ σ 
διαφοραί: καὶ τὸ ἀειδὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄχρωστον “Αιδης 
καὶ ᾿Αχέρων ἐπίκλησιν ἔσχεν. ὥσπερ οὖν αὐγῆς 
ἐπιλιπούσης σκοτεινὸς ἀήρ, οὕτω θερμοῦ μεταστάν- 

\ > / =i \ ΝΜ 3 9 / 
Tos TO ἀπολειπόμενον ἀὴρ ψυχρὸς ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐδέν 
ἐστι: διὸ καὶ Τάρταρος οὕτως" ὑπὸ ψυχρότητος 
κέκληται: δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ ᾿Ησίοδος εἰπὼν “᾿Τάρ- 
ταρον ἠερόεντα ᾿᾿" καὶ τὸ ῥιγοῦντα πάλλεσθαι καὶ 
τρέμειν “᾿ ταρταρίζειν.᾽᾿ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τοιοῦτον 
ἔχει λόγον. 
10. ᾿Επεὶ δ᾽ ἡ φθορὰ μεταβολή τίς ἐστι τῶν 
949 φθειρομένων εἰς τοὐναντίον ἑκάστῳ, σκοπῶμεν εἰ 
καλῶς εἴρηται τὸ “᾿ πυρὸς θάνατος ἀέρος γένεσις.᾽ 
θνήσκει γὰρ καὶ πῦρ ὥσπερ ζῷον, ἢ βίᾳ σβεννύ- 
μενον ἢ du αὑτοῦ μαραινόμενον. ἡ μὲν οὖν σβέσις 
ἐμφανεστέραν ποιεῖ τὴν εἰς ἀέρα μεταβολὴν αὐτοῦ" 
1 κνηκὶς Meziriacus from 951 B: καλεῖται. 


2 οὕτως Emperius: οὗτος. 
3 τάρταρον] Mss. of Hesiod have Taprapa 7’. 


@ Homer, /liad, xvii. 649-650. 

» Plutarch’s etymologies here are no more scientific or 
convincing than those to be found in his Roman Questions, 
L.C.L. vol. iv, pp. 6-171. 


246 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 948-949 


And another : 

The air at once he scattered and dispelled the mist ; 

The sun shone forth and all the battle came in view. ? 
They also call the lightless air knephas, being as it 
were, kenon phaous “ void of light’; and collected 
and condensed air has been termed nephos “ cloud ”’ 
because it is a negation of light.’ Flecks in the sky 
and mist and fog and anything else that does not 
provide a transparent medium for light to reach our 
senses are merely variations of air ; and its invisible 
and colourless part is called Hades and Acheron.* In 
the same way, then, as air is dark when light is gone, 
so when heat departs the residue is cold air and 
nothing else. And this is the reason why it has been 
termed Tartarus because of its coldness. Hesiod 4 
makes this obvious when he writes “ murky Tar- 
tarus’’; and to shake and shiver with cold is to 
‘“‘ tartarize.’’® Such, then, is the reason for these 
names. 

10. Since corruption, in each case, is a change of 
the things that are corrupted into their opposites, 
let us see whether the saying holds good that “ the 
death of fire is the birth of air.’ Fire, indeed, 
perishes like a living creature,’ being either ex- 
tinguished by main force or dying out of itself. Now 
if it is extinguished, that makes the change of fire 

¢ ** Invisible’; cf. 953 a below and Plato, Cratylus, 
403 A ff.; Phaedo, 81 c-p and contrast Mor. 942 τ supra: 

3 colourless; ᾿ achroston, Acheron. Cf. L. Parmentier, ** Re- 
cherches sur le traité d’Isis et d’Osiris de Plut.,”” Mém. Acad. 
Belg. ii. 2 (1912/13), pp. 71 ff. 

@ Theogony, 119; contrast Plato, Phaedo, 112 α ff. 

¢ Cf. Servius on Vergil, Aen. vi. 577. 

f Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, Ὁ. 168, Heraclitus, 
frag. 76 (frag. 25, ed. Bywater, p. 11). Cf. Mor, 392 c-p. 

9 Cf. Mor. 281 ¥F, 702 E-F; 703 B. 

947 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ \ ¢ \ 5 > \ τι ἀ \ [2 \ 
(949) Kal yap O καπνος GEPOS EOTLV εἶδος και ἢ κατα 
ΠΠ᾿δαρον “ ἀέρα' κνισᾶντι λακτίζοισα καπνῷ ᾿᾿ 
\ al ὦ / 2 \ > \ \ a 
λιγνὺς καὶ ἀναθυμίασις. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ φθινούσης 
3 / \ > a »Μ a > \ ~ J 
ἀτροφίᾳ φλογὸς ἰδεῖν ἔστιν, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ TOV λύχνων, 
\ »Μ ; > ~ oP / 2 \ \ > / 
TO ἄκρον εἰς ἀέρα γνοφώδη" Kat Codepov ἀποχεό- 
μενον ὃ ἱκανῶς δὲ καὶ ὁ τῶν μετὰ λουτρὸν ἢ πυρίαν 
περιχεαμένων' ψυχρὸν ἀνιὼν ἀτμὸς ἐνδείκνυται 
τὴν εἰς ἀέρα τοῦ θερμοῦ φθειρομένου μεταβολήν, 
Β ὡς φύσει πρὸς τὸ πῦρ ἀντικείμενον" ᾧ τὸ πρώτως 
τὸν ἀέρα σκοτεινὸν εἶναι καὶ ψυχρὸν ἠκολούθει. 
11. Kai μὴν ἁπάντων γε τῶν γινομένων ὑπὸ 
ψυχρότητος ἐ ἐν τοῖς σώμασι σφοδρότατον καὶ βιαιό- 
τατον ἡ πῆξις οὖσα, πάθος μέν ἐστιν ὕδατος, ἔ ἔργον 
δ᾽ ἀέρος" αὐτὸ μὲν γὰρ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ εὐδιά- 
χύυτον καὶ ἀπαγὲς καὶ ἀσύστατόν ἐστιν, ἐντείνεται 
δὲ καὶ συνάγεται τῷ ἀέρι σφιγγόμενον ὑπὸ ψυχρό- 
τῆτος" διὸ καὶ λέλεκται 


ce 


5» \ / M4 PA » / 
εἰ δὲ νότος βορέην προκαλέσσεται, αὐτικα 
νίψιει. 
~ \ / / Ὁ“ \ ¢ / 
TOU yap νότου καθάπερ ὕλην τὴν ὑγρότητα παρα- 
σ / ¢ / 3. e ἣ \ ΝΜ \ 
σκευάσαντος, ὁ βόρειος ἀὴρ ὑπολαβὼν ἔπηξε. καὶ 
~~ / 
δῆλόν ἐστι “μάλιστα περὶ τὰς χιόνας" ἀέρα γὰρ 
μεθεῖσαι καὶ προαναπνεύσασαι λεπτὸν καὶ , ψυχρὸν 
οὕτω ῥέουσιν. ᾿Αριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ τὰς ἀκόνας τοῦ 
μολίβδου τήκεσθαί φησι καὶ ῥεῖν ὑπὸ κρύους καὶ 
1 Plutarch’s mss. have ἀέρος κνίσσ᾽ ἀντιλακτίζουσα. mss. of 
Pindar read αἰθέρα. 
2 γνοφῶδες ? W. C. H.; Kronenberg deleted the preceding 
Kal. 
3 ἀποχεόμενον the Basel edition of 1525: ἀποχεομένων : 
ἀπερχόμενον Kronenberg. 


ὁ περιχεαμένων] other mss. have περιεχομένων and περι- 
χεομένων. 


248 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 949 


into air more conspicuous. Smoke, in fact, is a form 
of air, as is reek and exhalation, which, to quote 
Pindar,? 


Stabs at the air with unctuous smoke. 


Nevertheless, even when fire goes out for lack of 
nourishment, one may see, as for instance in the case 
of lamps, the apex of the flame passing off into murky, 
dusky air. Moreover, the vapour ascending from our 
bodies when, after a bath or sweat, cold water is 
poured on them, sufficiently illustrates the change 
of heat, as it perishes, into the air; and this implies 
that it is the natural opposite of fire. From this the 
Stoics drew the conclusion that air was primordially 
dark and cold. 

11. Moreover, freezing, which is the most extreme 
and violent effect of cold in bodies, is a condition 
of water, but a function of air. For water of itself is 
fluid, uncongealed and not cohesive ; but when it is 
compressed by air because of its cold state, it becomes 
taut and compact. This is the reason for the saying ? 


If Southwind challenges North, instantly snow will appear. 


For after the Southwind has collected the moisture 
as raw material, the Boreal air takes over and con- 
geals it. This is particularly evident in snowfields : 
when they have discharged a preliminary exhalation 
of air that is thin and cold, they melt. Aristotle 4 
also declares that whetstones of lead will melt and 
become fluid in the wintertime through excess of cold 


@ Asth:.iv. 112. 

’ Included without authority among Callimachus’s frag- 
ments (787 =anon. 384) by Schneider, but rejected by Pfeiffer. 

¢ Cf. Mor. 691 ¥ and Hubert’s references ad loc. 

4 Frag. 212, ed. Rose and cf. Mor. 695 νυ. 


249 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(949) χειμῶνος, ὕδατος μὲν οὐ; πλησιάζοντος αὐταῖς. ὁ δ᾽ 
ἀήρ, ὡς ἔοικε, συνελαύνων τὰ σώματα τῇ ψυχρότητι 
καταθραύει καὶ ῥήγνυσιν. 

12. Ἔστι τοίνυν τὰ μὲν ἀποσπασθέντα τῆς πηγῆς 
ὕδατα μᾶλλον πήγνυται" μᾶλλον γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐπικρα- 
τεῖ τοῦ ἐλάττονος. ἂν δέ τις ψυχρὸν ἐκ φρέατος 
ὕδωρ λαβὼν ἐν ἀγγείῳ καὶ καθεὶς αὖθις εἰς τὸ 
φρέαρ ὥστε μὴ ψαύειν τοῦ ὕδατος τὸ ἀγγεῖον ἀλλ᾽ 

D ἐν τῷ ἀέρι κρέμασθαι, περιμείνῃ χρόνον οὐ πολύν, 
ἔσται ψυχρότερον τὸ ὕδωρ. @ μάλιστα δηλοῦται 
τὸ μὴ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶναι τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν τῆς 
ψυχρότητος ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀέρος. τῶν γε μὴν pape 
ποταμῶν οὐδεὶς πήγνυται διὰ βάθους" οὐ γὰρ κα 
ίησιν εἰς ὅλον 6 ἀήρ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα τῇ ψυχρότητι περι- 
λαμβάνει ψαύων καὶ πλησιάζων, ταῦθ᾽ ἵστησιν" 
ὅθεν ot βάρβαροι διαβαίνουσι πεζῇ, προβαλόντες 
ἀλώπεκας" ἂν γὰρ μὴ πολὺς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπόλαιος ὁ 
πάγος 7, αἰσθανόμεναι τῷ ψόφῳ τοῦ ὑπορρέοντος 
ἀναστρέφουσιν. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ θηρεύουσιν ἰχθῦς, 

E ὕδατι θερμῷ τοῦ πάγου παραλύοντες καὶ χαλῶντες 
τό γε τὴν ὁρμιὰν δεξόμενον." οὕτως οὐδὲν ὑπὸ 
τοῦ ψυχροῦ τὸ ἐν βάθει πέπονθε. καίτοι τῶν ἄνω 
τοσαύτη γίνεται μεταβολὴ διὰ τὴν πῆξιν, ὥστε 
συντρίβειν τὰ πλοῖα τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποβιαζόμενον εἰς 


ἑαυτὸ καὶ συνθλιβόμενον, ὡς ἱστοροῦσιν ot νῦν 
1 μὲν οὐ Post: μόνου. 


2 to ye . . . δεξόμενον Wyttenbach ; τότε. . . δεξαμένων. 


α There is here probably a confusion of lead and tin, for 
both of which the term stannum is used in Latin. ‘Tin is re- 
duced to powder by severe cold, owing to transformation to 
its allotrope. In [Aristotle], De Mir. Ausc. 50 (p. 257, L.C.L.) 
the more nearly correct statement appears that tin melts in 


250 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 949 


when no water is anywhere near them; it seems 
probable that the air with its coldness forces the 
bodies together until it crushes and breaks them.” 
12. Furthermore, portions of water will freeze 
sooner than the spring from which they are drawn, 
for the air more readily masters the smaller amount. 
If you will draw from a well cold water in a jar ὃ and 
let it down again into the well in such a way that the 
jar does not touch the water, but is suspended in the 
air, and if you wait a short time, you will find that the 
water has become colder.’ This is very good evidence 
that the First Cause of coldness is not water but air. 
Certainly, none of the great rivers freezes through 
its entire depth; for the air does not penetrate down 
into the whole, but merely renders stationary as 
much as, by contact and proximity, it includes within 
the range of its coldness. And this is the reason why 
barbarians ὦ do not cross frozen rivers until they have 
tried them out with foxes : if the ice is not thick, but 
merely superficial, the foxes perceive this by the 
sound of the current running underneath and return 
to the bank. Some even catch fish by weakening and 
softening the ice with hot water—enough of the ice, 
at least, to admit their lines ; so the cold has no effect 
atadepth. Yet the water near the surface undergoes 
so great a change through freezing that ships are 
crushed by it when it is forced in on itself and squeezed 
tight, as those relate who recently passed the winter 


severe cold. This note is due to the suggestion of O. T. Benfey 
of Haverford College. 

Ὁ Presumably Plutarch is thinking of a jar of porous 
earthenware, such as are commonly used to cool water in 
the Near East. ¢ Cf. Mor. 690 8-Ἐ. 

4 The Thracians, according to 968 F ff. infra; cf. also Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. viii. 103; Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 24; xiv. 26. 


251 


(949) 


F 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


7 >? ~ 
μετὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος ἐπὶ τοῦ "lotpov διαχειμάσαντες. 
> \ > \ \ \ \ « ~ a ς \ 
od μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ TO περὶ ἡμᾶς συμβαῖνον ἱκανὴν 
μαρτυρίαν δίδωσι: μετὰ γὰρ τὰ λουτρὰ καὶ τὰς ἐξ- 
ιδρώσεις περιψυχόμεθα μᾶλλον, τοῖς σώμασιν ἀνει- 
μένοις καὶ διακεχυμένοις πολλὴν ψυχρότητα μετὰ 
τοῦ ἀέρος καταδεχόμενοι. τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τὸ 
ὕδωρ πάσχει: ψύχεται γάρ, ἂν προθερμανθῇ, μᾶλ- 
λον, εὐπαθέστερον τῷ ἀέρι γενόμενον" οἵ τε τὰ 
ζέοντα τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναρύτοντες" καὶ μετεωρίζοντες 
οὐδὲν ἄλλο δήπου ποιοῦσιν ἢ πρὸς ἀέρα πολὺν 
ἀνακεραννύουσιν. ὁ μὲν οὖν τῷ ἀέρι τὴν πρώτην 
ἀποδιδοὺς τῆς ψυχρότητος δύναμιν, ὦ Φαβωρῖνε, 
λόγος ἐν τοιαύταις ἐστὶ πιθανότησιν. 
13. Ὃ δὲ τῷ ὕδατι λαμβάνει μὲν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρχὰς 
ὁμοίως, οὕτω πως τοῦ ᾿᾿μπεδοκλέους λέγοντος 
cas F \ 1.3 ¢ 4 \ θ \ e Lis. 
ἠέλιον μὲν λαμπρὸν" opa* Kai θερμὸν ἁπάντῃ, 
A > 5 - / / ¢ / ᾽) 
ὄμβρον δ᾽ ἐν πᾶσι δνοφόεντά τε ῥιγαλέον Te ’’: 

~ \ ~ \ \ ¢ ~ A a \ / 
τῷ yap θερμῷ τὸ ψυχρὸν ws τῷ λαμπρῷ τὸ μέλαν 
ἀντιτάξας συλλογίσασθαι δέδωκεν, ὅτι τῆς αὐτῆς 
\ \ - “-“ 
οὐσίας ἐστὶ τὸ μέλαν καὶ τὸ ψυχρόν, ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς 

’ U > ~ 

τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ θερμόν. ὅτι δ᾽ οὐ τοῦ ἀέρος 

\ / 5 \ ~ μ΄ / 2 ¢ ” > 
τὸ μέλαν ἀλλὰ τοῦ ὕδατός ἐστιν, ἡ αἴσθησις ἐπι- 
A ~ \ ¢ ~ ΡΟ 
μαρτυρεῖ, τῷ μὲν ἀέρι μηδενὸς ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν 
μελαινομένου τῷ δ᾽ ὕδατι πάντων. ἂν γὰρ τὸ λευ- 
/ 2 / ” > “ ae Ie / > / 
κότατον ἐμβάλῃς ἔριον εἰς ὕδωρ ἢ ἱμάτιον, avadat- 

1 of re Wyttenbach : ὁπότε. 
2 ἀναρύτοντες ‘Turnebus : ἀνορύττοντες. 


3 λαμπρὸν] λευκὸν Aristotle. 
4 Spa] ὁρᾶν Aristotle and Simplicius. 





-... . 


α Probably the reference is to Trajan and the Second 
252 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 949-950 


with Caesar“ on the Danube. Nevertheless, what 
happens in our own case is ample testimony : after 
warm baths and sweats we are cooler, since our bodies 
are relaxed and porous, so that we take in a good deal 
of cold along with the air.’ The same thing happens 
to water, too: it freezes faster when it has first been 
heated, thus becoming more susceptible to air ; and 
those who draw off boiling water and suspend it in 
the air do this, surely, only to secure the admixture 
of great quantities of air.’ So now, Favorinus, the 
argument that attributes the primal force of cold to 
the air depends on such plausibilities as these. 

13. But the argument which attributes it to water 
finds in the same way facts to support it; Empedo- 
cles © says something like this : 

Behold the sun, everywhere bright and warm ; 
And then the rain, to all men dark and cold. 


By thus setting cold against hot, as he does dark 
against bright, he has given us to understand that 
dark and cold belong to the same substance, as do 
also bright and hot. And our senses bear witness 
that darkness is an attribute of water, not of air, since 
nothing, to put it simply, is blackened by air and 
everything is by water.“ For if you throw the whitest 
wool or the whitest garment into water, it will come 


Dacian War (a4.p. 105-107). Plutarch’s intimate friend, 
Sosius Senecio, is known to have taken part in it. 

ὑ Cf. Mor. 690 c-p. 

¢ Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, p. 319, frag. B 21, 
lines 3 and 5. Plutarch apparently used a version different 
from those known to Aristotle and Simplicius. The evidence 
is complicated and may be consulted in Diels-Kranz. On 
Empedocles’ meaning see Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of 
the Presocratics, p. 110. 

4“ Cf. Mor. 364 πὶ 


253 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ \ / / a“ « Ἁ / 

(950) νεται μέλαν και διαμένει, μέχρι ἂν ὑπο θερμότητος 
ἐξικμασθῇ τὸ ὑγρὸν ἤ τισι στρέβλαις καὶ βάρεσιν 
ἐκπιεσθῇ: τῆς τε γῆς ὕδατι ῥαινομένης, διαμελαί- 
νουσιν ot καταλαμβανόμενοι ταῖς σταγόσι τόποι, 
τῶν ἄλλων ὁμοίων μενόντων. αὐτοῦ μὲν οὖν τοῦ 
ὕδατος σκοτεινότατον ὑπὸ πλήθους φαίνεται τὸ 
Β βαθύτατον, οἷς δ᾽ ἀὴρ πλησιάζει, ταῦτα περιλάμ- 
\ ΄ - ἌΥΝ ς ~ \ 
πεται Kal διαγελᾷ. τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ὑγρῶν διαφανὲς 
μάλιστα τοὔλαιόν ἐστι, πλείστῳ χρώμενον ἀέρι: 

7 \ / Ὁ / ai > / 
τούτου δὲ τεκμήριον ἡ κουφότης, du ἣν ἐπιπολάζει 
πᾶσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀναφερόμενον. ποιεῖ δὲ Kal’ 
γαλήνην ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ τοῖς κύμασιν ἐπιρραινό- 
μενον, οὐ διὰ τὴν λειότητα τῶν ἀνέμων ἀπολισθα- 
/ ¢e > / ” > \ \ \ 
νόντων, ws ᾿Αριστοτέλης ἔλεγεν: ἀλλὰ παντὶ μὲν 
ὑγρῷ τὸ κῦμα διαχεῖται πληττόμενον, ἰδίως δὲ τοὔ- 
λαιον αὐγὴν καὶ καταφάνειαν ἐν βυθῷ παρέχει, 

7 - 3 4 “. ς ~ > \ / 
διαστελλομένων τῷ ἀέρι τῶν ὑγρῶν: οὐ yap μόνον 

, ~ A / > ἈΝ \ / 
ἐπιπολῆς τοῖς" διανυκτερεύουσιν ἀλλὰ Kal κάτω 
Ο τοῖς σπογγοθήραις διαφυσώμενον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος 
» ~ / / > / , ~ ΑΝ 
ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ φέγγος ἐνδίδωσιν. οὐ μᾶλλον οὖν 

~ ~ av ~ ζ. 

τῷ ἀέρι τοῦ μέλανος 7) τῷ ὕδατι μέτεστιν, ἧττον δὲ 
τοῦ ψυχροῦ. τὸ γοῦν ἔλαιον, ἀέρος πλείστου τῶν 
ὑγρῶν μετέχον, ἥκιστα ψυχρόν ἐστι καὶ πήγνυται 
μαλακῶς: ὁ γὰρ ἀὴρ ἐγκεκραμένος οὐκ ἐᾷ σκληρὰν 
γενέσθαι τὴν πῆξιν" βελόνας δὲ καὶ πόρπας σιδηρᾶς 
καὶ τὰ λεπτὰ" τῶν ἔργων οὐχ ὕδατι βάπτουσιν 
> > ᾽ / \ »Μ / (4 ~ 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐλαίῳ, τὴν ἄγαν ψυχρότητα φοβούμενοι τοῦ 


1 τὴν after καὶ deleted by Diibner. 
* τοῖς] missing in nearly all mss. 


254 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 950 


out black and it will remain black until the moisture 
is evaporated by heat or is squeezed out by some sort 
of wringing or pressure. When a patch of ground is 
sprinkled, the spots which are covered by the drops 
turn black, but the rest remains as it was. In fact, 
of water itself the deepest looks the darkest because 
there is so much of it, while those parts that lie near 
the air flash and sparkle *; and of the other liquids 
oil is the most transparent, as containing the most 
air. A proof of this is its lightness, by reason of which 
it maintains itself on the surface of all other things, 
buoyed up by the air.’ If it is sprinkled upon the 
waves, it will calm the sea, not because it is so smooth 
that the winds slip off it, as Aristotle ὁ affirmed ; but 
because the waves are dissipated when they are 
struck by any moist substance. But it is peculiar to 
oil that it provides light and sight at the bottom since 
the moist elements are interspersed with air ; it is, 
in fact, not only on the surface that it provides light 
for those who pass the night at sea; it does so also 
for sponge-divers ὦ below the surface when it is blown 
out of their mouths. Air, therefore, has no greater 
proportion of darkness than water has, and it has 
less cold. Certainly oil, which has more air than any 
other moist substance, is least cold; and when it 
freezes, it forms a soft jelly : the air that is intermixed 
does not permit it to freeze hard. They dip needles, 
iron clasps, and all delicate artifacts in oil rather than 
in water, fearing that the water’s excessive frigidity 


« Cf.-952 Ὁ infra. » Cf. Mor. 090 Β. 702 B. 

© Problemata, 961 a 23 ff., though this work is surely not 
by Aristotle in the form in which it has come down to us. 

4 Cf. 981 © infra; Oppian, Hal. v. 638 ff. 





3 λεπτὰ Madvig: λοιπὰ. 


255 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(950) ὕδατος ὡς διαστρέφουσαν. ἀπὸ τούτων yap δικαιό- 
τερόν ἐστιν ἐξετάζεσθαι τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν 
χρωμάτων: ἐπεὶ καὶ χιὼν καὶ χάλαζα καὶ κρύσταλ- 
λος ἅμα λαμπρότατα γίνεται καὶ ψυχρότατα: καὶ 

D πάλιν πίττα θερμότερόν ἐστι μέλιτος καὶ σκοτω- 
δέστερον. 

14. Ὅμως δὲ θαυμάζω τῶν ἀξιούντων τὸν ἀέρα 
ψυχρὸν εἶναι διὰ τὸ καὶ σκοτεινόν, εἰ μὴ συνορῶσιν 
ἑτέρους ἀξιοῦντας θερμὸν εἶναι διὰ τὸ καὶ κοῦφον. 
οὐ γὰρ οὕτω τῷ ψυχρῷ τὸ σκοτεινὸν ὡς τὸ βαρὺ 
καὶ στάσιμον οἰκεῖόν ἐστι καὶ συγγενές: πολλὰ γὰρ 
ἄμοιρα θερμότητος ὄντα μετέχει λαμπηδόνος, ἐλα- 
φρὸν δὲ καὶ κοῦφον καὶ ἀνωφερὲς οὐδέν ἐστι τῶν 

~ 2 \ \ A / / A > By 3 / 
ψυχρῶν. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ νέφη, μέχρι μὲν ἀέρος οὐσίᾳ 
μᾶλλον προσήκει, μετεωρίζεται: μεταβαλόντα δ᾽ εἰς 

€ \ > \ > Zz \ \ ~ ’ ‘ a“ 
E ὑγρὸν εὐθὺς ὀλισθάνει καὶ τὸ κοῦφον οὐχ ἧττον ἢ 

\ \ 5» / / > / A 
τὸ θερμὸν ἀποβάλλει, ψυχρότητος ἐγγινομένης" καὶ 

9 / [72 / ~ | / / 5» 7 
τοὐναντίον ὅταν θερμότης ἐπέλθῃ, πάλιν ἀναστρέφει 
τὴν κίνησιν, ἅμα τῷ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἀέρα τῆς 
οὐσίας ἄνω φερομένης. 

Καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ τῆς φθορᾶς ἀληθές ἐστιν: οὐ γὰρ 
εἰς τοὐναντίον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐναντίου φθείρεται τῶν 
ἀπολλυμένων ἕκαστον, ὥσπερ τὸ πῦρ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
iv, 3 \ ay \ \ a7 ες \ » / 
ὕδατος εἰς TOV ἀέρα. TO yap ὕδωρ ὁ μὲν Αἰσχύλος 

>] \ ~ 5 > 53 ~ > 
εἰ καὶ τραγικῶς ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς εἶπε 
“παύσυβριν' δίκην πυρός ’’: 
Ὅμηρος δὲ τῷ ποταμῷ τὸν Ἥφαιστον καὶ τῷ 
"Ποσειδῶνι τὸν ᾿Απόλλωνα κατὰ τὴν μάχην φυ- 

F σικῶς μᾶλλον ἢ μυθικῶς ἀντέταξεν. ὁ δ᾽ ᾿Αρχί- 
256 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 950 


may distort them. It is, in fact, fairer to judge the 
argument by this evidence than by that of colour, 
since snow and hail and ice are at their brightest when 
they are coldest. Moreover, pitch is both hotter and 
darker than honey. 

14. I am surprised, nevertheless, when those who 
maintain that the air is cold because it is dark do not 
perceive that others think it must be hot because it 
is light. For darkness is not so closely connected and 
akin to cold as heaviness and stability are; many 
things, in fact, which have no heat are bright, but 
nothing cold is buoyant, light, and soaring. Why, 
the very clouds, as long as they are akin to the sub- 
stance of air, float aloft ; but as soon as they change to 
moisture, they fall at once and lose their lightness no 
less than their warmth as coldness grows within them. 
Contrariwise, when heat supervenes, they reverse 
the movement again, for their substance begins to 
soar as soon as it has changed to air. 

Nor is the argument from destruction true either ; 
for when anything is destroyed, it does not perish by 
becoming its opposite, though it does perish by the 
action of its opposite, as fire, for instance, is changed 
by water into air. For of water Aeschylus* speaks 
in tragic style, but accurately, as 


The riot-quelling justicer of fire. 


And when Homer ὃ matched Hephaestus against the 
river and Apollo against Poseidon in the battle, he 
did it rather as a philosopher than as a poet. And 


@ Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. pp. 107-108, frag. 360. 
> Tliad, xxi. 330-383 ; 435-469. The river is the Xanthus. 


1 παύσυβριν Bernardakis: παῦε ὕδωρ. 
VOL. XII K 257 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(950) Aoxos ἐπὶ τῆς τἀναντία φρονούσης od κακῶς εἶπε 


ce ~ \ Ὁ“ > / 
TH μὲν ὕδωρ ἐφόρει 
/ / > / \ ~ }) 
δολοφρονέουσα χειρί, τἠτέρῃ δὲ πῦρ. 
b] \ / ~ ¢ / / s \ 
ev δὲ Πέρσαις τῶν ἱκετευμάτων μέγιστον ἦν Kal 
> > ~ 
ἀπαραίτητον, εἰ πῦρ λαβὼν ὁ ἱκετεύων Kal ἐν πο- 
ταμῷ βεβηκὼς ἀπειλοίη μὴ τυχὼν τὸ πῦρ εἰς τὸ 
/ e - 
ὕδωρ ἀφήσειν: ἐτύγχανε μὲν γὰρ ὧν ἐδεῖτο, τυχὼν 
> 
δ᾽ ἐκολάζετο διὰ τὴν ἀπειλὴν ὡς παρὰ νόμον Kal 
κατὰ τῆς φύσεως γενομένην. καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ πρό- 
χειρον ἅπασι “ πῦρ ὕδατι μιγνύναι ᾿᾿ TO παροιμια- 
ζόμενον ev’ τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις, μαρτυρεῖν ἔοικεν ὅτι τῷ 
\ \ Ὁ“ / / > \ ¢ \ / / 
πυρὶ TO ὕδωρ πολέμιόν ἐστι καὶ ὑπὸ τούτου φθεί- 
951 ρεται καὶ κολάζεται σβεννύμενον, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ 
5 
ἀέρος ὃς τοὐναντίον" ὑπολαμβάνει τὴν οὐσίαν av- 
“ \ / / > \ Ψ 8 > 
τοῦ Kal δέχεται μεταβάλλοντος. εἰ yap ἅπαν εἰς 
Δ / \ / > / > / / ~ 
ὃ μεταβάλλει τὸ φθειρόμενον ἐναντίον ἐστί, τί μᾶλ- 
~ ~ \ - 
λον τῷ ἀέρι τὸ πῦρ ἢ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐναντίον φανεῖται; 
/ \ > “ / > \ ~ 
μεταβάλλει yap εἰς ὕδωρ συνιστάμενος εἰς δὲ πῦρ 
διακρινόμενος: ὥσπερ αὖ πάλιν τὸ ὕδωρ διακρίσει 
μὲν εἰς ἀέρα φθείρεται συγκρίσει δ᾽ εἰς γῆν, ὡς 
μὲν ἐγὼ νομίζω δι᾽ οἰκειότητα τὴν πρὸς ἀμφότερα 
καὶ συγγένειαν, οὐχ ὡς ἐναντίον ἑκατέρῳ καὶ πο- 
~ / 
λέμιον. ἐκεῖνοι δέ, ὁποτέρως ἂν εἴπωσι, TO ἐπι- 
Β χείρημα διαφθείρουσι. πήγνυσθαί γε μὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ 
1 ἐν] ἐπὶ van Herwerden ; Hartman would delete τὸ παροι- 
pualopevov ἐν τοῖς ἀδυνάτοις. 


2 ὃς τοὐναντίον Post: τίον ὡς, τεῖνον ws or a lacuna in the Mss. 
3 ἅπαν Bernardakis: αἰτία. 


® Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, i. 237, frag. 86; 
Edmonds, Elegy and lambus (L.C.L.), ii, p. 146, frag. 93 ; 


258 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 950-951 


Archilochus ὦ expressed himself well on a woman 
who was of two minds : 
With guileful thoughts she bore 
In one hand water, in the other fire. 

Among the Persians it was the most compelling plea 
to gain an end, one which would admit no refusal, if 
the suppliant took fire, stood in a river, and threatened 
that if he lost his suit, he would drop the fire into the 
water. Now he got what he asked, but though he 
did so, he was punished for the threat, on the ground 
that it was contrary to law and against nature. Again, 
the familiar proverb that is on everyone’s lips,® “ to 
mix fire with water,’ as an example of the impossible, 
seems to bear witness that water is hostile to fire, 
which is destroyed by it and so is punished by being 
extinguished ὁ ; it is not so affected by air, which, on 
the contrary, supports fire and welcomes it in its 
changed form. For if anything into which the thing 
destroyed changes is its opposite, why will fire, any 
more than water, seem opposite to air? For air 
changes into water by condensation, and into fire by 
rarefaction just as,on the other hand, water vanishes 
into air by rarefaction, but into earth by condensation. 
Now these processes take place, in my opinion, not 
because these elements are contrary or hostile to one 
another, but because they are in close affinity and rela- 
tionship. But my opponents,’ whichever way they 
state their case, ruin their proof. Certainly it is per- 


quoted again in Mor. 1070 a, Life of Demetrius, 35 
(905 πε). 

> But, curiously enough, not to be found in the Paroemio- 
graphi Graeci, as edited by Leutsch and Schneidewin. 

¢ Of. the quotation from Aeschylus supra, 950 kr. 

4 Presumably those who, in 950 p supra, claim that air is 
cold because it is dark. 


259 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ 
(951) ἀέρος φάναι to’ ὕδωρ ἀλογώτατόν ἐστιν, αὐτὸν τὸν 
~ ~ \ 
ἀέρα μηδαμοῦ πηγνύμενον ὁρῶντας. νέφη yap καὶ 
> / \ / > / + eae | > \ 
ὀμίχλαι καὶ κνηκίδες οὐ πήξεις εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ ov- 
στάσεις καὶ παχύτητες ἀέρος διεροῦ Kal ἀτμώδους" 
« ες. \ \ 2. fy / \ / 
ὁ δ᾽ ἄνικμος Kai ξηρὸς οὐδ᾽ ἄχρι ταύτης τὴν κατά- 
~ ΄ ” ~ 
ψυξιν ἐνδέχεται τῆς μεταβολῆς. ἔστι yap a τῶν 
> ~ > / / ᾽ \ / 9.9 > / 
ὁρῶν οὐ λαμβάνει νέφος οὐδὲ δρόσον οὐδ᾽ ὀμίχλην, 
7 
εἰς καθαρὸν ἀέρα καὶ ἄμοιρον ὑγρότητος ἐξικνού- 
A - ΄ « 
μενα τοῖς ἄκροις: ᾧ μάλιστα δῆλόν ἐστιν ὡς ἡ 
κάτω πύκνωσις καὶ σύστασις τῷ ἀέρι συμμεμειγ- 
μένον ὑγρὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν ἐνδίδωσι. 
- - / 
15. Ta δὲ κάτω τῶν μεγάλων ποταμῶν οὐ πή- 
γνυται κατὰ λόγον. τὰ γὰρ ἄνω παγέντα τὴν ἀνα- 
> / On 2 Ἃ5. 15 , \ 
θυμίασιν οὐ διίησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγκαθειργνυμένη Kat 
Ο ἀποστρεφομένη θερμότητα παρέχει τοῖς διὰ βάθους 
ὑγροῖς" ἀπόδειξις δὲ τούτου τὸ λυομένου τοῦ πάγου 
/ > ~ ~ 
πάλιν ἀτμὸν πολὺν ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναφέρεσθαι. 
\ \ ~ ~ 
διὸ καὶ τὰ TOV ζῴων σώματα χειμῶνός ἐστι θερ- 
/ ~ A ~ 
μότερα TH συνέχειν TO θερμὸν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς 
Ui / 
ἔξωθεν ψυχρότητος εἴσω συνελαυνόμενον. 
ς > 3 / 
At δ᾽ avaptces Kal μετεωρίσεις οὐ μόνον τὸ 
θε \ ἕ - ARRLEY 3 ΧᾺ ὦ τ ae 
ρμὸν ἐξαιροῦσι τῶν ὑδάτων ἀλλὰ καὶ TO ψυχρόν 
“ σ \ / 
ὅθεν ἥκιστα τὰς χιόνας Kal TO συνθλιβόμενον ὑγρὸν 
3 > b) ~ ς / ~ ~ 
ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ot σφόδρα ψυχροῦ δεόμενοι κινοῦσιν" 
> \ \ “- 
ἐκστατικὸν γὰρ ἀμφοῖν ἡ κίνησις. 
“O δ᾽ ᾿ >/ > \ Ἰλλ᾽ “ὃ ¢ / 
τι δ᾽ οὐκ ἀέρος ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ὕδατος ἡ τοιαύτη 
/ “ A > ~ ~ 
δύναμις, οὕτως ἄν Tis ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς ἐπέλθοι. πρῶτον 


1 τὸ added by Benseler. 
2 dunow Wyttenbach : διίεσιν. 


260 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 951 


fectly absurd for them to say that water is frozen by air 
when they have never seen air itself freezing. For 
clouds, mists, and flecks in the sky are not congela- 
tions, but condensations and thickenings of air that is 
moist and vaporous. But waterless, dry air never 
admits loss of heat to the point where such a change 
might occur. There are, in fact, mountains which do 
not know clouds or dew or mist because their peaks 
reach a region of pure air that has no humidity at all. 
From this fact it is especially obvious that it is the 
condensation and density below that contribute to air 
the cold, moist element that is found in combination 
with it. 

15. It is reasonable that the lower portion of large 
rivers should not freeze ; for the upper portion, being 
frozen, does not transmit the exhalation which is, 
accordingly, shut in and turned back, and so provides 
heat for the deep waters. A demonstration of this 
is the fact that when the ice melts again a great 
quantity of vapour rises from the waters. This is also 
the reason why the bodies of animals are warmer in 
the winter, because the heat is driven inwards by the 
cold from without and they keep it within them. 

Now drawing off water and suspending it in the 
air * not only takes away its warmth, but its coldness 
also; those, therefore, who want a very cold drink 
take care not to disturb the snowpacks ἢ or the wet 
matter that is formed from them by compression, 
for movement expels both heat and cold. 

That such a function of cold belongs not to air, but 
to water, may be demonstrated as follows from a fresh 


2 Cf. 949 τ supra; Mor. 690 B-E. 
δ Cf. Mor. 691 c—692 a for snow packed in chaff and the 
like. 


261 


(951) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


μὲν οὐκ εἰκός ἐστιν ἀέρα, τῷ αἰθέρι γειτνιῶντα Kal 
ψαύοντα τῆς περιφορᾶς καὶ ψαυόμενον οὐσίας" πυ- 
/ \ > / ” 4 »Μ \ Μ 
ρώδους, τὴν ἐναντίαν ἔχειν δύναμιν: οὔτε γὰρ ἄλλως 
δυνατὸν ἁπτόμενα καὶ συνεχῆ τοῖς πέρασιν ὄντα 
/ / \ / ¢ > > / > \ / 
δύο σώματα μὴ πάσχειν ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, εἰ δὲ πά- 
σχειν, μὴ ἀναπίμπλασθαι τῆς τοῦ κρείττονος δυνά- 
1 ἴα 2 ” \ , ” , > a 
pews TO ἡἧττον"- οὔτε τὴν φύσιν ἔχει λόγον ἐφεξῆς 
τῷ φθείροντι τάξαι τὸ φθειρόμενον, ὥσπερ οὐ κοινω- 
νίας οὖσαν οὐδ᾽ ἁρμονίας ἀλλὰ “πολέμου καὶ μάχης 
δημιουργόν. χρῆται μὲν γὰρ ἐναντίοις εἰς τὰ ὅλα 
~ > 
πράγμασι": χρῆται δ᾽ οὐκ ἀκράτοις οὐδ᾽ ἀντιτύποις, 
> > > / / \ / > > A 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐναλλάξ τινα θέσιν καὶ τάξιν οὐκ ἀναιρετικὴν 
ἀλλὰ κοινωνικὴν dv ἑτέρων καὶ συνεργὸν ἐν μέσῳ 
/ 4m \ / ” ἌΡ Se τ 
παραπλεκομένην᾽ ἔχουσι" καὶ ταύτην εἴληφεν ὁ ἀήρ, 
ὑποκεχυμένος τῷ πυρὶ πρὸ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ διαδιδοὺς 
ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερα καὶ συνάγων, οὔτε θερμὸς ὧν αὐτὸς 
οὔτε ψυχρὸς ἀλλὰ ψυχροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ μετακέρασμα 
καὶ κοινώνημα, μειγνυμένων ἐν αὐτῷ μῖξιν ἀβλαβῆ 
~ ~ > 
καὶ μαλακῶς avietcav® καὶ δεχομένην Tas ἐναντίας 
ἀκρότητας. 
” ~ \ > aN » ᾽ 
16. ἔπειτα πανταχοῦ μὲν ἐστιν ἀὴρ ἴσος, οὐ 
~ \ \ σ > \ ~ > \ 
πανταχοῦ δὲ χειμὼν ὅμοιος οὐδὲ ψῦχος. ἀλλὰ 
ταῦτα μὲν τὰ μέρη ψυχρὰ καὶ κάθυγρα, ταῦτα δὲ 
ξηρὰ καὶ θερμὰ τῆς οἰκουμένης οὐ κατὰ τύχην, 
ἀλλὰ τῷ μίαν οὐσίαν ψυχρότητος καὶ ὑγρότητος 


1 οὐσίας Xylander : οὔσης. 

2 δύο. .. ἧττον are omitted in most mss. 

3 χρῆται μὲν. . . πράγμασι are omitted in most Mss., in B 
also, but not in E. 

4 παραπλεκομένην E and most Mss. : παραπεπλεγμένην B. 

5 ἁνιεῖσαν Turnebus: ἐνιεῖσαν. 


262 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 951 


start. In the first place, it is improbable that air, 
which lies adjacent to the aether α and touches and is 
touched by the revolving fiery substance, should have 
a force that is contrary to that of aether. For one 
thing, it is impossible for two substances whose boun- 
daries touch and are contiguous not to be acted upon 
by each other—and if acted upon, for the weaker not 
to be contaminated by the force that resides in the 
stronger. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that Nature 
has placed side by side destroyer and victim, as though 
she were the author of strife and dissension, not of 
union and harmony. She does, indeed, make use of 
opposites to constitute the universe ; yet she does 
not employ them without a tempering element, or 
where they will collide. She disposes them rather 
so that a space is skipped and an inserted strip duly 
assigned whereby they will not destroy one another, 
but may enjoy communication and co-operation. And 
this strip is occupied by air, suffused as it is through 
a space under the fire ὃ between it and water. It 
makes distribution both ways and receives contribu- 
tions from both, being itself neither hot nor cold, but 
a blending and union of the two. When these are so 
fused, they meet without injury and the fused matter 
sends forth or takes to itself the opposing extremes ° 
without violence. 

16. Then, too, air is everywhere equal, though 
neither winter nor cold is identical everywhere. It 
is no accident that some parts of the world are cold 
and damp, while others are hot and dry; it is due 
to the existence of a single substance that includes 

2 On the difference between aer and aether see the lucid 
discussion of Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods, pp. 207 f. 


ὃ That is, the aether. See also Cherniss, op. cit. p. 126. 
¢ Heat and cold. 


263 


(951) 
F 


952 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


εἷναι. Λιβύης μὲν yap ἔνθερμος ἡ πολλὴ καὶ av- 
υδρος, Σκυθίαν δὲ καὶ Θράκην καὶ Ilovrov οἱ πε- 
πλανημένοι λίμνας τε μεγάλας ἔχειν καὶ ποταμοῖς 
διαρρεῖσθαι βαθέσι καὶ πολλοῖς ἱστοροῦσιν: αὐτῶν 
τε τῶν ἐν μέσῳ τόπων τὰ παράλιμνα καὶ ἑλώδη 
ψῦχος ἔχει μάλιστα διὰ τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀνα- 
θυμιάσεις" [Ποσειδώνιος δὲ τῆς ψυχρότητος αἰτίαν 
εἰπὼν τὸ πρόσφατον εἶναι τὸν ἕλειον ἀέρα καὶ 
νοτερὸν οὐκ ἔλυσε τὸ πιθανόν, ἀλλὰ πιθανώτερον 
ἐποίησεν" οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐφαίνετο τοῦ ἀέρος. ὁ ἡ πρόσφατος 
ἀεὶ ψυχρότερος, εἰ μὴ τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐ ἐν τοῖς ὑγροῖς τὴν 
γένεσιν εἶχε. βέλτιον οὖν “Ὅμηρος 

“ αὔρη δ᾽ ἐκ ποταμοῦ ψυχρὴ πνέει ἠῶθι' po,” 
τὴν πηγὴν τῆς ψυχρότητος ἔδειξεν. 

"Ett τοίνυν "ἢ μὲν αἴσθησις πολλάκις ἡμᾶς ἐξ- 
απατᾷ, ὅταν ἱματίων ἢ ἐρίων ψυχρῶν θιγγάνωμεν, 
οἰομένους ὑγρῶν θιγγάνειν διὰ τὸ κοινὴν ἀμφοτέροις 
οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν καὶ τὰς φύσεις συγγενεῖς" εἶναι 
καὶ οἰκείας. ἐν δὲ τοῖς δυσχειμέροις κλίμασι πολλὰ 
ῥηγνύει τὸ ψῦχος ἀγγεῖα καὶ χαλκᾶ καὶ κεραμεᾶ: 
κενὸν δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἀλλὰ πάνταἥ πλήρη, βιαζομένου τῇ 
ψυχρότητι τοῦ ὕδατος. καίτοι φησὶ Θεόφραστος 

τὸν ἀέρα ῥηγνύναι τὰ ἀγγεῖα τῷ ὑγρῷ καθάπερ 
Β ἥλῳ᾽ χρώμενον: ὅρα δὲ μὴ τοῦτο κομψῶς μᾶλλον 


1 πνέει ἠῶθι] omitted in most mss., which also write πρός. 
2 συγγενεῖς Kronenberg: σύνεγγυς. 
8 πάντα] omitted in most mss. 
4 ἥλῳ Turnebus : ἡλίῳ. 





4 Plutarch may be thinking of the old kingdom of Pontus, 
which included tracts south, east, and north of the Black Sea. 
> The fragment has not yet been numbered in L. Edel- 


264 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 951-952 


coldness and wetness in one. The greater part of 
Africa is hot and without water; while those who 
have travelled through Scythia, Thrace, and Pontus 4 
report that these regions have great lakes or marshes 
and are traversed by many deep rivers. As for the 
regions that lie between, those that are near lakes 
and marshes are especially cold because of the ex- 
halations from the water. Posidonius,? then, in 
affirming that the freshness and moistness of marsh 
air is the reason for the cold, has done nothing to 
disturb the plausibility of the argument; he has, 
rather, made it more plausible. For fresh air would 
not always seem colder if cold did not take its origin 
from moisture. So Homer ° spoke more truly when 
he affirmed 


The river-air blows chill before the dawn, 


thereby indicating the source of coldness. 

Our senses, moreover, often deceive us and we 
imagine, when we touch cold garments or cold wool, 
that we are touching moist objects : this is because 
wet and cold have a common substance and their 
natures have a close affinity and relationship. In very 
cold climates the low temperature often breaks 
vessels whether they are of bronze or of clay—not, 
of course, when they are empty, but only when they 
are full and the water exerts pressure by means of 
its coldness. Theophrastus,’ to be sure, declares that 
the air breaks these vessels, using the liquid as a 
spike. But take care 5 that there isn’t more wit than 


stein’s forthcoming collection ; for the literature see 4.J.P. 
lvii (1936), p. 301 and n. 61. © Odyssey, v. 469. 

4 The fragment is apparently omitted by Wimmer. 

¢ This seems to be addressed to Favorinus’s Peripatetic 
sympathies. 


265 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


“ iA AG » / 4 ” \ \ / / 

(952) ἢ GAnUws εἰρημενον 7° ἔδει yap τὰ πιττὴς γεμοντα 
μᾶλλον ῥήγνυσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ τὰ γάλακτος. 
> VA” ” arse ? ¢ “ \ b \ 
Αλλ᾽ ἔοικε TO ὕδωρ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ψυχρὸν εἶναι καὶ 
πρώτως: ἀντίκειται γὰρ τῇ ψυχρότητι πρὸς τὴν 
θερμότητα τοῦ πυρός, ὥσπερ τῇ ὑγρότητι πρὸς τὴν 
ξηρότητα καὶ τῇ βαρύτητι πρὸς τὴν κουφότητα. 
καὶ ὅλως τὸ μὲν πῦρ διαστατικόν ἐστι καὶ διαι- 
ρετικόν, τὸ δ᾽ ὕδωρ κολλητικὸν καὶ σχετικόν, τῇ 
ὑγρότητι συνέχον καὶ πῆττον᾽ ἧ καὶ παρέσχεν ᾿Ἐμ- 
πεδοκλῆς ὑπόνοιαν, ὡς τὸ μὲν πῦρ “νεῖκος οὐ- 

/ +) ce / 2) ᾿ ἐξέ / +) \ € \ 
λόμενον,᾽᾿ “᾿ σχεδύνην ᾿᾿ δὲ “ diddtyta’’ τὸ ὑγρὸν 
C ἑκάστοτε προσαγορεύων: ἐπεὶ τροφὴ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ 
μεταβάλλον εἰς πῦρ, μεταβάλλει δὲ τὸ συγγενὲς 
καὶ οἰκεῖον, τὸ δ᾽ ἐναντίον δυσμετάβλητον, ὡς τὸ 
ὕδωρ: καὶ αὐτὸ μὲν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἀκαυστόν ἐστιν, 

“ \ \ / \ \ / ϑ' 
ὕλην δὲ καὶ πόαν νοτερὰν καὶ ξύλα βεβρεγμένα 

~ / \ λ / \ \ > rv A 
δυσκαῆ παρέχει, καὶ φλόγα Codepav καὶ ἀμβλεῖαν 

3 “- - 
ὑπὸ χλωρότητος ἀναδίδωσι τῷ ψυχρῷ μαχόμενον 
πρὸς τὸ θερμὸν ὡς φύσει πολέμιον. 

Σκόπει δὴ καὶ ταῦτα παραβάλλων ἐκείνοις. 
ἐπειδὴ yap’ Χρύσιππος οἰόμενος τὸν ἀέρα πρώτως 
ψυχρὸν εἶναι, διότι καὶ σκοτεινόν, ἐμνήσθη μόνον 

~ / > / \ “ ~ > / a” \ 
τῶν πλέον ἀφεστάναι TO ὕδωρ τοῦ αἰθέρος ἢ τὸν 
ἀέρα λεγόντων, καὶ πρὸς αὐτούς τι βουλόμενος 
> “- {{ “ \ ” a> ΝΜ cc \ \ ion \ 
εἰπεῖν, “᾿ οὕτω μὲν av,’ ἔφη, “᾿ καὶ τὴν γῆν ψυχρὰν 
εἶναι πρώτως λέγοιμεν, ὅτι τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀφέστηκε 
1 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ Wyttenbach: ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ. 


2 That is, than those full of water. 

» Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.®, i, Ὁ. 318, frag. B 19. 
Plutarch seems to have mistaken Empedocles’ meaning, 
though some would invoke frag. B 34. In general, while 


266 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 952 


truth in such a remark! For if it were so, vessels full 
of pitch or of milk would more readily be broken by 
the air.* 

Water, however, seems to be cold of itself, and 
primordially so. It is the antithesis, in its coldness, 
to the heat of fire, just as in its wetness to the dryness 
of fire, and in its heaviness to the other’s lightness. 
To sum up: fire is of a disintegrating and separative 
nature, while water is adhesive and retentive, holding 
and gluing together by means of its moistness. 
Empedocles ὃ alluded to this, when, as often as he 
mentioned them, he termed Fire a “ Destructive 
Strife’ and Water “ Tenacious Love.” For the 
nourishment of fire is that which can be changed 
into fire and only things that have affinity and a 
close relationship to it can be so changed; while 
its opposites, like water, are not easily changed to 
fire. Water itself is practically incombustible, and it 
renders matter such as damp grass and moist timber 
very hard to consume ; the greenness in them pro- 
duces a dusky, dull flame because, by dint of cold, it 
struggles against heat as against its natural enemy. 

17. Now you must pursue the subject by comparing 
these arguments with those of my opponents. For 
Chrysippus,° thinking that the air is primordially 
cold because it is also dark, merely mentioned those 
who affirm that water is at a greater distance from the 
aether ὦ than is air; and, wishing to make them some 
answer, he said, “ If so, we might as well declare that 
even earth is primordially cold because it is at the 
Plutarch is said to have written ten books on Empedocles 
(Lamprias catalogue no. 43), he does not seek the difficult 
poet’s meaning very carefully. 


¢ Von Arnim, S.V./F’. ii, p. 140; cf. Mor. 1053 x. 
@ See 951 ἢ supra. 


267 


(952) 
Dw 


F 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


πλεῖστον, ws ἀδόκιμόν τινα παντελῶς τοῦτον καὶ 
ἄτοπον ἀπορρίψας τὸν λόγον, ἐγώ μοι δοκῶ μηδὲ 
τὴν γῆν ἄμοιρον εἰκότων καὶ πιθανῶν ἀποφαίνειν," 

ποιησάμενος ἀρχὴν ᾧ μάλιστα Χρύσιππος ὑ ὑπὲρ τοῦ 
ἀέρος κέχρηται. τί δὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστί; τὸ σκοτεινὸν 
ὄντα πρώτως εἶναι καὶ ψυχρὸν πρώτως. εἰ γὰρ 
δύο λαβὼν οὗτος ἀντιθέσεις δυνάμεων οἴεται τῇ 
ἑτέρᾳ καὶ τὴν ἑτέραν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεσθαι, μυρίαι 
δήπουθέν εἰσιν ἀντιτάξεις καὶ ἀντιπάθειαι πρὸς τὸν 
αἰθέρα" τῆς γῆς, αἷς καὶ ταύτην ἄν τις ἀκολουθεῖν 
ἀξιώσειεν. οὐ “γὰρ ὡς βαρεῖα πρὸς κοῦφον καὶ 
καταρρεπὴς πρὸς ἀνωφερὲς ἀντίκειται μόνον, οὐδ᾽ 
ὡς πυκνὴ πρὸς ἀραιὸν οὐδ᾽ ὡς βραδεῖα καὶ στά- 
σιμος πρὸς ὀξύρροπον καὶ κινητικόν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 
βαρυτάτη πρὸς κουφότατον καὶ πυκνοτάτη πρὸς 
ἀραιότατον, καὶ τέλος ὡς ἀκίνητος ἐξ ἑ ἑαυτῆς πρὸς 
αὐτοκίνητον καὶ τὴν μέσην χώραν ἐπέχουσα πρὸς 
ἀεὶ κυκλοφορούμενον. οὐκ ἄτοπον οὖν τηλικαύταις 
καὶ τοσαύταις ἀντιτάξεσι καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχρότητος 
καὶ θερμότητος ἕπεσθαι. ναί, ἀλλὰ τὸ πῦρ λαμπρόν 
ἐστιν. οὔτι pens σκοτεινὸν ἡ γῆ; σκοτεινότατον 
μὲν οὖν ἁπάντων καὶ ἀφεγγέστατον. ἀέρι μέν γε 
μετοχὴ φωτός ἐστι πρώτῳ, καὶ τάχιστα τρέπεται 
καὶ ἀναπλησθεὶς διανέμει πανταχοῦ τὴν λαμπρό- 
THTA, σῶμα παρέχων τῆς αὐγῆς ἑαυτόν: 6 γὰρ ἥλιος 
ἀνίσχων, ὥς τις εἶπε τῶν διθυραμβοποιῶν, 


ce 


Ya a9 ole > A , 5 Dey ” 
εὐθὺς ἀνέπλησεν ἀεροβατᾶν μεγαᾶν OLKOV GVEULWY * 


ἀποφανεῖν Hatzidakis. 
εἶναι καὶ ψυχρὸν πρώτως added by Patzig. 
αἰθέρα Leonicus : ἀέρα. 
4 οὔτι μὴν] the text is that of E: B and other mss. have 
several lacunae. 


268 


onw 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 952 


greatest distance from the aether ’’—tossing off this 
argument as if it were utterly inadmissible and absurd. 
But I have a mind to maintain the thesis that earth 
too is not destitute of probable and convincing argu- 
ments, and 1 shall start with the one that Chrysippus 
has found most serviceable for air. And what is this? 
Why, that it is primordially dark and cold. For if he 
takes these two pairs of opposing forces and assumes 
_ that one must of necessity accompany the other, 
there are, surely, innumerable oppositions and anti- 
pathies between the aether and the earth with which 
one might suppose this to be consistent. For it 
is not only opposed as heavy to light and as moving 
by gravity downwards, not upwards, or as dense 
to rare or as slow and stable to mobile and active, 
but as heaviest to lightest and as densest to rarest 
and, finally, as immovable of itself to self-moving, 
and as occupying the central position in the universe 
to revolving forever around a centre. Itis not absurd, 
then, if oppositions so numerous and important carry 
with them the opposition of cold and heat as well. 
“Yes,” Chrysippus may say, “ but fire is bright.” 
Is not the earth, then, dark ? Why, it is the darkest 
and most unilluminated of all things. Certainly air 
is first of all to participate in light; it is instantly 
altered and when it is saturated, it distributes 
illumination everywhere, lending itself to light as a 
body in which to reside. For when the sun arises, 
as one of the dithyrambic writers 7 has said, 


It straightway fills the mighty home of the air-borne winds. 


* Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ii. 302; Edmonds, 
Lyra Graeca (L.C.L.), iii, Ὁ. 460 (adespota no. 95). 


5 ye] yap Meziriacus. 


269 


(952) 


953 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> τς \ \ / \ /, - , ~ 
ἐκ τούτου δὲ καὶ λίμνῃ καὶ θαλάττῃ μοῖραν αὐγῆς 
κατιὼν ἐνίησι καὶ βυθοὶ ποταμῶν διαγελῶσιν, ὅσον 
- € ~ ~ 

ἀέρος ἐξικνεῖται πρὸς αὐτούς. μόνη δ᾽ ἡ γῆ τῶν 
> 

σωμάτων ἀεὶ ἀφώτιστός ἐστι Kal ἄτρωτος ὑφ 
e / \ / ~ / A LA δ᾽ ¢ > 
ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης τῷ φωτίζοντι, θάλπεται δ᾽ ὑπ 
Stn \ , ’ ὟΝ Oe , 1 
αὐτῶν καὶ παρέχει χλιαίνειν ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον βάθος 

~ ~ / 
ἐνδυομένῳ τῷ θερμῷ: τὸ δὲ λαμπρὸν od παρίησιν 
«ε \ ’ὔ 5 > > ~ / \ 
ὑπὸ στερεότητος ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπολῆς περιφωτίζεται, τὰ 
vif \ ” \ , Oe a. > , r 
δ᾽ ἐντὸς ὄρφνη καὶ χάος καὶ ᾿Αίδης ὀνομάζεται-" 
, ~ Ss ” 

καὶ TO ἔρεβος τοῦτ᾽ ἦν apa, TO χθόνιον καὶ ἔγγαιον 
σκότος. τὴν δὲ νύκτα ποιηταὶ μὲν ἐκ γῆς γεγονέναι 
μυθολογοῦσι, μαθηματικοὶ δὲ σκιὰν γῆς οὖσαν ἀπο- 
δεικνύουσιν ἀντιφραττούσης πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον: ὃ γὰρ 
ἀὴρ ἀναπίμπλαται σκότους ὑπὸ γῆς ὡς φωτὸς ὑφ᾽ 
ἡλίου: καὶ τὸ ἀφώτιστον αὐτοῦ μῆκός ἐστι νυκτός, 
ὅσον ἡ σκιὰ τῆς γῆς ἐπινέμεται. διὸ τῷ μὲν ἐκτὸς 
ἀέρι καὶ νυκτὸς οὔσης ἀνθρωποί τε χρῶνται καὶ 
θηρία πολλὰ νομὰς ποιούμενα διὰ σκότους, ἁμωσ- 
γέπως ἴχνη φωτὸς καὶ ἀπορροὰς αὐγῆς ἐνδιεσπαρ- 
μένας ἔχοντος" ὁ δ᾽ οἰκουρὸς καὶ ὑπωρόφιος, ἅτε 
δὴ τῆς γῆς πανταχόθεν περιεχούσης, κομιδῇ τυφλός 
> \ 5 / > \ \ \ / A 
ἐστι καὶ ἀφώτιστος. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ δέρματα καὶ 
κέρατα ζῴων ὅλα μὲν οὐ διίησιν αὐγὴν ὑπὸ στερεό- 
τητος, ὅταν δὲ πρισθῆ καὶ καταξεσθῇ, γίνεται δια- 
φανῆ, παραμιχθέντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀέρος. οἶμαι δὲ 


1 βάθος Wyttenbach : κάρος or φάρος. 


« Cf. Aeschylus, Prometheus, 90, and 950 8 supra. 
» The Invisible Place, according to the etymology adopted 
above in 948 F. 


270 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 952-953 


Next the air, moving downward, infuses a part of its 
brightness into the lakes and the sea, and the depths 
of the rivers flash brightly, to the extent that air 
is able to penetrate them. Of all bodies only the 
earth remains constantly without light, impenetrable 
to the illumination of sun or moon ; yet it is warmed 
by them and permits the heat to sink in and warm 
it up to a slight depth. But because it is solid, earth 
does not give passage to light, but is encircled by 
light on its surface only, while the inner parts are 
called Darkness and Chaos and Hades °—so that 
Erebus © turns out to be the subterranean and interior 
darkness. Then, too, the poets tell us that Night 
was born of Earth ὦ and mathematicians demonstrate 
that night is the shadow of Earth blocking the light 
of the sun. The air, indeed, is saturated with dark- 
ness by the earth, just as it is with light by the sun. 
The unlighted portion of the air is the area of night, 
amounting to the space occupied by the earth’s 
shadow. This is the reason why men make use of the 
air out of doors even when it is night, as well as many 
beasts which do their pasturing in the darkness, since 
it retains some vestiges of light and dispersed glim- 
merings of radiance ; but the house-bound man who 
is under a roof is utterly blind and without light 
inasmuch as there the earth envelops him from all 
directions. Whole skins, furthermore, and horns of 
animals do not let light pass through them because 
of their solidity ; yet if sections are sawed off and 
polished, they become translucent when once the 
air has been mixed with them. It is also my opinion 
© Hesiod, Theogony, 125. The original meaning of Erebus 
is actually “‘ darkness ”’. 
4 Cf. Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, Ὁ. 331, Em- 
pedocles, frag. B 48; cf. Mor. 1006 Fr. 
271 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(953) καὶ μέλαιναν ἑκάστοτε τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν 
~ \ \ ~ \ \ > / σ 
καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ σκοτῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀφώτιστον: ὥστε 
καὶ τὴν πολυτίμητον ἀντίθεσιν τοῦ σκοτεινοῦ πρὸς 
τὸ λαμπρὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπ- 

άρχειν. 
@ 18. "AAV αὕτη μὲν ἀπήρτηται τοῦ ζητουμένου" 
\ A / A ~ ~ y+ \ 
πολλὰ yap δέδεικται ψυχρὰ τῶν λαμπρῶν ὄντα Kat 
θερμὰ τῶν ἀμαυρῶν καὶ σκοτεινῶν. ἐκεῖναι δὲ 
» 
συγγενέστεραι δυνάμεις ψυχρότητός εἰσι, τὸ ἐμ- 
\ \ , \ \ 1, > , - 
βριθὲς τὸ μόνιμον τὸ πυκνὸν τὸ ἀμετάβλητον: ὧν 
SY \ , ~ ~ \ ~ av [7 ~ 
ἀέρι μὲν οὐδεμιᾶς, γῇ δὲ μᾶλλον ἢ ὕδατι πασῶν 
μέτεστι. καὶ μὴν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα τὸ ψυχρὸν αἰσθη- 
τῶς σκληρόν ἐστι καὶ σκληροποιὸν καὶ ἀντίτυπον. 
> ~ \ \ ς ~ /, € \ εὔ͵ 
ἰχθῦς μὲν γὰρ ἱστορεῖ Θεόφραστος ὑπὸ ῥίγους πε- 
πηγότας, ἂν ἀφεθῶσιν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, κατάγνυσθαι 
\ ἢ ε axel A ΄, 
καὶ συντρίβεσθαι δίκην ὑελῶν' ἢ κεραμεῶν σωμά- 
Ὁ των. ἐν δὲ Δελφοῖς αὐτὸς ἤκουες ὅτι τῶν εἰς τὸν 
\ > / ~ A / 2 
Ilapvacov ἀναβάντων βοηθῆσαι ταῖς Θυιάσιν, 
ἀπειλημμέναις ὑπὸ πνεύματος χαλεποῦ καὶ χιόνος, 
΄ Ψ /, \ \ 4 A \ 7 
οὕτως ἐγένοντο διὰ TOV πάγον σκληραὶ Kal ξυλώδεις 
ες 4 ς \ / / A 
at χλαμύδες, ws καὶ θραύεσθαι διατεινομένας καὶ 
ἃ} A ~ ~ 
ῥήγνυσθαι. ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ νεῦρα δυσκαμπῆ καὶ 
γλῶτταν ἄναυδον ἀκινησίᾳ καὶ σκληρότητι τὸ ἄγαν 
ψῦχος, ἐκπηγνύον τὰ" ὑγρὰ καὶ μαλακὰ τοῦ σώ- 
ματος. 


1. ὑελῶν van Herwerden : ὑέλων. 
2 Θυιάσιν Bernardakis : θυάσιν. 3 τὰ] most mss. have καὶ. 


272 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 953 


that the earth is called black by the poets,” whenever 
they have occasion to do so, because of its murky and 
lightless characteristics. The result, then, of these 
considerations is that the much-prized antithesis of 
light and darkness belongs to earth rather than to air. 

18. This, however, has no relevance to the question 
under discussion ; for it has been shown that there 
are many cold objects which are bright and many 
hot which are dull and dark. Yet there are qualities 
more closely connected that belong to coldness : 
heaviness, stability, solidity, and resistance to change. 
Air has no part at allin them, while earth has a greater 
share in all of them than water has. Cold, moreover, 
is perceptibly one of the hardest of things and it 
makes things hard and unyielding. Theophrastus,? 
for instance, tells us that when frozen fish are dropped 
on the ground, they are broken and smashed to bits 
just like objects of glass or earthenware. And at 
Delphi you yourself heard, in the case of those who 
climbed Parnassus to rescue the Thyiades ὁ when 
they were trapped by a fierce gale and snowstorm, 
that their capes were frozen so stiff and wooden that 
when they were opened out, they broke and split 
apart. Excessive cold, because of its hardness and 
immobility, also stiffens the muscles and renders the 
tongue speechless, for it congeals the moist and 
tender parts of the body. 

* e.g. Homer, Jliad, ii. 699 ; Aleman, 36 (Edmonds, Lyra 
Graeca, i, p. 76; Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, ii. 27) ; 
Sappho, 38 (Edmonds, op. cit. i, p. 208). 

® Frag. 184 Wimmer. 

¢ The Thyiades were Attic women, devotees of Dionysus, 
who went every other year to Delphi to join in the midwinter 
festival. (See Guthrie, The Greeks and their Gods, p. 178.) 


The rites must have involved considerable discomfort and 
even risk, as Dodds says (edition of Euripides, Bacchae, p. xi). 


273 


(953) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


19. Ὧν βλεπομένων, σκόπει TO γινόμενον οὕτω. 
πᾶσα δήπου δύναμις, ἂν περιγένηται, πέφυκε μετα- 
\ 
βάλλειν καὶ τρέπειν εἰς ἑαυτὴν TO νικώμενον" TO 
~ ~ \ > 
μὲν yap ὑπὸ θερμοῦ κρατηθὲν ἐκπυροῦται, τὸ ὃ 
~ / 
ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἐξαεροῦται, TO δ᾽ εἰς ὕδωρ ἐμπεσόν, 
ἂν μὴ διαφύγῃ, καθυγραίνεται συνδιαχεόμενον. 
3 / \ \ \ / ~ / > 
ἀνάγκη δὴ Kal Ta ψυχόμενα κομιδῇ μεταβάλλειν εἰς 
\ / / ” “(ἘΠ \ / ~ 
τὸ πρώτως ψυχρόν" ἔστι δ᾽ ὑπερβολὴ ψύξεως πῆξις, 
- > ᾽ > / ~ \ / i 
πῆξις δ᾽ εἰς ἀλλοίωσιν τελευτᾷ καὶ λίθωσιν, ὅταν, 
/ ~ ~ / > ~ \ \ 
παντάπασι τοῦ ψυχροῦ κρατήσαντος, ἐκπαγῇ μὲν TO 
ς \ >] ~ \ \ / “ ε \ > / 
ὑγρὸν ἐκθλιβῇ δὲ τὸ θερμόν. ὅθεν ἡ μὲν ev βάθει 
γῆ πάγος ἐστὶν ὡς εἰπεῖν καὶ κρύσταλλος ἅπασα" 
τὸ γὰρ ψυχρὸν ἄκρατον οἰκουρεῖ καὶ ἀμάλακτον 
ἀπεωσμένον ἐκεῖ τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀπωτάτω: ταυτὶ δὲ 
> ~ \ \ 
τὰ ἐμφανῆ, κρημνοὺς καὶ σκοπέλους Kal πέτρας, 
> ~ \ ¢ \ ~ \ ” ~ ? / 
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς οἴεται τοῦ ev βάθει 
τῆς γῆς ἑστάναι καὶ ἀνέχεσθαι διερειδόμενα φλεγ- 
~ A 
μαίνοντος: ἐμφαίνεται δὲ μᾶλλον, ὅσων τὸ θερμὸν 
ἐξεθλίβη καὶ διέπτατο, πάντα ταῦτα παντάπασιν 
ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχρότητος παγῆναι: διὸ καὶ πάγοι κα- 
λοῦνται. καὶ τὰ ἄκρα πολλῶν ἐπιμελανθέντα, 7 
τὸ θερμὸν ἐξέπεσε, πυρικαύστοις ἰδεῖν προσέοικε" 
7 \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ So 
πήγνυσι yap TO ψυχρὸν τὰ μὲν μᾶλλον τὰ δ᾽ ἧττον, 


954 μάλιστα δ᾽ οἷς πρώτως ἐνυπάρχειν πέφυκεν. ὥσπερ 


1 ἐπιμελανθέντα Emperius : ἐπιμελανθέντων. 


α See 951 ἢ above. 

» Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, i, p. 296, frag. A 69 ; 
cf. Mor. 691 8 and Hubert’s references ad loc, 

¢ Crags and rocks are called pagoi (as the Areo-pagus, 


274 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 953-954 


19. In view of these considerations, regard the 
facts in the following light : every force, presumably, 
whenever it prevails, by a law of nature changes and 
turns into itself whatever it overcomes. What is 
mastered by heat is reduced to flames, what is 
mastered by wind turns to air; and anything that 
falls into the water, unless it gets out quickly, dis- 
solves and liquefies. It follows, then, that whatever 
is completely frozen must turn into primordial cold. 
Now freezing is extreme refrigeration that terminates 
in a complete alteration and petrifaction when, since 
the cold has obtained complete mastery, the moist 
elements are frozen solid and the heat is squeezed 
out. This is the reason why the earth at its bottom- 
most point is practically all solid frost and ice. For 
there undiluted and unmitigated cold abides at bay, 
thrust back to the point farthest removed from the 
flaming aether.? As for these features that are 
visible, cliffs and crags and rocks, Empedocles ὃ thinks 
that they have been fixed in place and are upheld by 
resting on the fire that burns in the depths of the 
earth ; but the indications are rather that all these 
things from which the heat was squeezed out and 
evaporated were completely frozen by the cold ; and 
for this reason they are called pagoi.“ So also the 
peaks @ of many of them have a black crust where the 
heat has been expelled and have the appearance of 
debris from a conflagration. For the cold freezes 
substances to a varying degree, but hardest those of 
which it is naturally a primary constituent. Thus, if 
‘* Mars Hill,’’ at Athens), which Plutarch correctly connects 
with the verb meaning “ freeze ’’ or “ solidify ’’ and uses to 
confute Empedocles. 


4 Plutarch is speaking of volcanoes like Aetna with a lava 
bed on top. 


275 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


- / > ~ 
(954) yap, εἰ θερμοῦ τὸ κουφίζειν, θερμότατόν ἐστι τὸ 
> ~ 
κουφότατον: εἰ δ᾽ ὑγροῦ τὸ μαλάσσειν, ὑγρότατον 

\ ~ 
τὸ μαλακώτατον: οὕτως, εἰ Kal ψυχροῦ τὸ πηγ- 
νύειν, ἀνάγκη καὶ ψυχρότατον εἶναι τὸ μάλιστα 

, - ς ἧς \ \ , , , 
πεπηγός, οἷον ἡ γῆ" TO δὲ ψυχρότατον φύσει δήπου 
καὶ πρώτως ψυχρόν: ὥστε πρώτως καὶ φύσει 
ψυχρὸν ἡ γῆ. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἀμέλει καὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει 

~ / » \ A \ 7 ᾽ὔ \ 

δῆλόν ἐστι" Kal yap πηλὸς ὕδατος ψυχρότερον καὶ 

~ ~ ~ « aA 

TO πῦρ γῆν ἐπιφοροῦντες ἀφανίζουσιν: ot δὲ χαλκεῖς 
~ / 

τῷ πυρουμένῳ καὶ ἀνατηκομένῳ σιδήρῳ μάρμαρον 

\ , , 1 \ \ ε" 

Β καὶ λατύπην παραπάσσουσι, τὴν πολλὴν ῥύσιν 
5 / \ “4 / \ \ \ ~ 
ἐφιστάντες Kal καταψύχοντες" ψύχει δὲ Kal TA TOV 
ἀθλητῶν ἡ κόνις σώματα Kal κατασβέννυσι τοὺς 
ἱδρῶτας. 

20. Ἢ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἡμᾶς μετά- 
γουσα καὶ μετοικίζουσα χρεία τί βούλεται, χει- 
μῶνος μὲν ἀπωτάτω φεύγουσα τῆς γῆς εἰς μετέωρα 
καὶ ἀπόγεια, θέρους δὲ πάλιν ἀντεχομένη τῶν κάτω 
καὶ ὑποδυομένη καὶ διώκουσα προσφόρους" κατα- 
φυγάς, τιθεμένη δίαιταν ἐν ἀγκάλαις γῆς ἀγαπητῶς; 
ἄρ᾽ οὐχὶ ταῦτα ποιοῦμεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ ψυχρό- 
τητος ὁδηγούμενοι τῇ αἰσθήσει καὶ τὸ πρώτως 
φύσει ψυχρὸν ἐπιγινώσκοντες; at γοῦν παράλιοι 
χειμῶνος δίαιται τρόπον τινὰ γῆς φυγαί εἰσιν, ὡς 
5 \ 5 / \ / 5» / \ > 

C ἀνυστὸν ἀπολειπόντων διὰ κρύος αὐτήν, τὸν ὃ 
” Dy VF. \ / A »Μ 
ἔναλον ἀέρα καὶ πελάγιον θερμὸν ὄντα περιβαλ- 
λομένων"- εἶτ᾽ αὖθις ἐν θέρει τὸν γηγενῆ καὶ χερ- 

"» nw »” 
σαῖον ὑπὸ καύματος ποθοῦμεν, οὐκ αὐτὸν ὄντα 
276 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 954 


it is the nature of heat to lighten, the lightest object 
will have most heat, and if it is the nature of humidity 
to soften, the softest will have the most humidity ; 
so, if it is also true that the nature of cold is to harden, 
then it must also follow that the hardest object will 
have the most cold—that is to say, just as the earth 
has. But what is coldest by nature is surely also 
primarily cold, so that the earth is in fact cold both 
primordially and naturally ; and, of course, this is 
obvious even to the senses. Mud, in fact, is a colder 
thing than water; and men extinguish a fire by 
dumping earth upon it. Blacksmiths, when their iron 
becomes fiery and begins to melt, sprinkle on it marble 
chips and gypsum to check and cool it off before it 
melts too much. It is also true that dust cools the 
bodies of athletes and dries up their sweat. 

20. And what is the meaning of our demand for 
a yearly change of habitation ? In winter we retreat 
to the loftiest parts of our houses, those farthest from 
the earth, while in summer we require the lower parts, 
submerging ourselves and going in quest of comfor- 
table retreats, as we make the best of a life in the 
embrace of mother earth. Since we do this, are we 
not guided to the earth by our perception of its cold- 
ness? Do we not acknowledge it as the natural seat 
of primordial cold? And surely our living by the sea 
in the winter is, in a way, an escape from the earth, 
since we abandon the land as far as possible because 
of the frost and wrap ourselves in salt sea air because 
it is warm. Then again, in the summer by reason of 
the heat, we long for the earth-born, upland air, not 


1 περιπάσσουσι van Herwerden. 
2 προσφόρους] mpocyeious Patzig. 
3 περιβαλλομένων Wyttenbach : περιβάλλομεν. 


217 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


954) ψυχρὸν ἀλλὰ τοῦ φύσει ψυχροῦ Kal πρώτως ἀπο- 
| ρ 
/ \ / « A ~~ 5 ~ / 
βλαστάνοντα Kai βεβαμμένον ὑπὸ τῆς ev γῇ δυνά- 
μεως ὥσπερ βαφῇ σίδηρον. καὶ γὰρ τῶν ῥυτῶν 
ὑδάτων τὰ πετραῖα καὶ ὀρεινὰ ψυχρότατα καὶ τῶν 
φρεατιαίων τὰ κοιλότατα: τούτοις μὲν γὰρ οὐκέτι 
/ \ 7 »Μ « 3, ψ{᾽ , nw | > 
μείγνυται διὰ βάθους ἔξωθεν ὁ ἀήρ, ἐκεῖνα δ᾽ ἐκ- 
πίπτει διὰ τῆς γῆς ἀμίκτου καὶ καθαρᾶς, ὡς τὸ 
~ τ, 
D περὶ Ταίναρον, ὃ δὴ Στυγὸς ὕδωρ καλοῦσιν, ἐκ 
/ / / [7 / σ 
πέτρας γλίσχρως συλλειβόμενον οὕτω ψυχρόν, ὥστε 
\ 5 an »” / 9 = \ y+ a 
μηδὲν ἀγγεῖον ἄλλο μόνην δ᾽ ὁπλὴν ὄνου στέγειν" 
\ > Μ / \ 474 
τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα διακόπτει Kal ῥήγνυσιν. 

21. "Ere γε μὴν τῶν ἰατρῶν ἀκούομεν, ὡς πᾶσα 
~ ~ / 7 \ / 4 \ \ 
γῆ τῷ γένει στύφειν καὶ ψύχειν πέφυκε: καὶ πολλὰ 
τῶν μεταλλευομένων καταριθμοῦσι στυπτικὴν αὐ- 
ΡῈ ’ὔ 
τοῖς παρέχοντα καὶ σχετικὴν εἰς τὰς φαρμακείας 

A ~ \ 
δύναμιν: Kal yap τὸ στοιχεῖον αὐτῆς οὐ τμητικὸν 
» \ \ » ἢ \ 2 5» > ” 9 / 
οὐδὲ κινητικὸν οὐδὲ λεπτὸν" οὐδ᾽ ἔχον ὀξύτητας 
» \ \ >} 3 » / 4 > > 
οὐδὲ μαλθακὸν οὐδ᾽ εὐπερίχυτον γέγονεν, ἀλλ 
ε ~ ες « 4 A / “ , ’ὔἢ 
E ἑδραῖον ὡς 6 κύβος καὶ συνερειστικόν. ὅθεν αὐτὴ 
- ” \ \ / a Ss 4 
τε βρῖθος ἔσχε, Kal τὸ ψυχρόν, ὅπερ ἦν δύναμις 
αὐτῆς, τῷ πυκνοῦν καὶ συνωθεῖν καὶ ἀποθλίβειν τὰ 
\ 
ὑγρὰ φρίκας Kal τρόμους διὰ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν ἐνερ- 
γάζεται τοῖς σώμασιν" ἂν δ᾽ ἐπικρατήσῃ παντάπασι, 
τοῦ θερμοῦ φυγόντος ἢ σβεσθέντος, ἔστησε τὴν 
ἕξιν ἐκπαγεῖσαν καὶ νεκρωθεῖσαν. ὅθεν οὐδὲ 
καίεται γῆ τὸ παράπαν ἢ καίεται γλίσχρως καὶ 
1 τὸ περὶ Ταίναρον Wyttenbach: περιττοτέρων or περὶ τὸ 


Ταίναρον (τὸ περὶ Νώνακριν Emperius). 
2 λεπτὸν Turnebus: λεῖπον or λίπον. 


278 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 954 


because it is itself chilly, but because it has sprung 
from the naturally and primordially cold and has been 
imbued with its earthy power, as steel is tempered 
by being plunged in water.? And of flowing waters, 
also, the coldest are those that fall from rocks or 
mountains, and of well waters the deepest are the 
coldest ; the air from outside does not, in the case 
of these wells, affect the water, so deep are they, 
while any such streams burst forth through pure un- 
mixed earth, like the one at Taenarum,? which they 
call the water of Styx: it flows from the rock in a 
trickle, but so cold that no vessel except an ass’s hoof 
can contain it—all others it bursts and breaks apart. 

21. We are, further, informed by physicians that 
generically earth is by nature astringent and cold, 
and they enumerate many metals that provide a 
styptic, staying effect for medicinal use. The element 
of earth is not sharp or mobile or slender or prickly 
or soft or ductile, but solid and compact like a cube.¢ 
This is how it came to have weight ; and the cold, 
which is its true power, by thickening, compressing, 
and squeezing out the humidity of bodies, induces 
shivering and shaking through its inequality ?; and 
if it becomes complete master and expels or ex- 
tinguishes all the heat, it fixes the body in a frozen 
and corpselike condition. This is the reason why 
earth does not burn at all, or burns only grudgingly 

« Cf. Mor. 433 a and 946 ὁ supra. 

ὃ Plutarch knew that the mouth of Hades was at Taenarum 
(Pindar, Pythian, iv. 44) and transferred the Styx to that 
place. For its water see Frazer on Pausanias, vill. 18. 4. 
According to Antigonus, Hist. Mirab. 158 (ed. Keller) no 
receptacle except one of horn can contain the water ; he adds, 
“ΑἹ! that taste of it die.” 


¢ Cf. Mor. 288 © and Plato, Timaeus, 55 Ὁ-Ἑ. 
4 Cf. 948 B supra. 


279 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(954) μόγις. ἀὴρ μὲν yap ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πολλάκις φλόγας 
ἀναδίδωσι καὶ pet’ καὶ διαστράπτει πυρούμενος"" 
τῷ δ᾽ ὑγρῷ τροφῇ χρῆται τὸ θερμόν: οὐ γὰρ τὸ 
στερεὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ νοτερὸν τοῦ ξύλου καυστόν ἐστιν" 
> , 3 \ 7 \ \ \ \ 

F ἐξικμασθέντος" δὲ τούτου, TO στερεὸν καὶ ξηρὸν 
ἀπολείπεται τέφρα γενόμενον. οἱ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο 
/ 4 > a“ \ 
φιλοτιμούμενοι μεταβάλλον ἀποδεῖξαι καὶ KaTava- 
λισκόμενον ἀναδεύοντες πολλάκις ἐλαίῳ καὶ στέατι 
φύροντες οὐδὲν περαίνουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἐκκαῇ τὸ 
λιπαρόν, περίεστι πάντως καὶ διαμένει τὸ γεῶδες" 
ὅθεν οὐ κατὰ χώραν μόνον ἐξ ἕδρας ἀκίνητον οὖσαν 
? \ > \ \ > > / 5 / « / 
αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀμετάβλητον, ᾿στίαν, 

id \4 ¢¢ / 5 ~ ” +) / 5 
ἅτε δὴ “᾿ μένουσαν ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ, κάλλιστα" προσ- 
nyopevoay οἱ παλαιοΐ, διὰ τὴν στάσιν καὶ πῆξιν" ἧς 
« / / > ς 3 / ¢ \ 
ἡ ψυχρότης δεσμός ἐστιν, ws ᾿Αρχέλαος 6 φυσικὸς 
Φ ~ \ ’ὔ, 
εἶπεν, οὐδενὸς χαλῶντος αὐτὴν οὐδὲ μαλάττοντος, 
/ 
ate θερομένην καὶ ἀλεαινομένην οὐσίαν." 
955 Οἱ δὲ πνεύματος μὲν αἰσθάνεσθαι ψυχροῦ καὶ 
~ 4. , ~ 
ὕδατος, γῆς δ᾽ ἧττον οἰόμενοι, τὴν ἔγγιστα γῆν 
~ / 
ὁρῶσιν ἀέρων καὶ ὑδάτων καὶ ἡλίου καὶ θερμότη- 
/ / 
Tos ἀνάπλεων σύμμιγμα Kal συμφόρημα yeyern- 
~ \ \ 5» / 
μένην: καὶ οὐδὲν διαφέρουσι τῶν μὴ Tov αἰθέρα 
1 ῥεῖ] ζεῖ Emperius. 
ιαστράπτει πυρούμενος Bernardakis: διαστραπτόμενος or 
ἀστράπτει πυρούμενος. 
8. ἐξικμασθέντος Turnebus : ἰκμασθέντος. 
4 “Ἑστίαν, ἅτε δὴ Turnebus: ἔστιν ὅτε δὲ. 
5 κάλλιστα Post (who also suggests ἰσαίτατα) : κλίτα : δικαιό- 
τατα W.C. H. 


6 οὐσίαν Post and Sandbach: οὖσαν (deleted by Wytten- 
bach ; ἠρεμοῦσαν Crénert). 


280 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 954-955 


and with difficulty. Air, on the other hand, often 
shoots forth flames from itself and, turning into fire, 
makes streams and flashes of lightning. Heat feeds 
on moisture,” for it is not the solid part of wood, 
but the damp part, that is combustible ; and when 
this is distilled, the solid, dry part remains behind, 
reduced to ashes.2. Those who emulously strive to 
prove that this too is changed and consumed, sprink- 
ling it, perhaps, with oil or kneading it with suet and 
setting it alight, accomplish nothing ; for when the 
oily part is consumed, the earthy remains as a per- 
manent residue, do what they may. Not only, there- 
fore, because the earth is physically immovable from 
its station, but also because it is unalterable in es- 
sence, it was quite appropriately called Hestia ° by 
the ancients—in as much as she “ remains in the home 
of the gods ’’—because of its stationary and compact 
nature ; and coldness is what binds it together, as 
Archelaiis ὁ the natural philosopher declared, since 
nothing can relax or soften it, as a substance that is 
subject to heating or warming might be loosened. 
As for those who suppose that they feel cold air and 
water, but are less sensible of earth’s coldness, what 
they perceive is that portion of earth which is closest 
to them and has come to be a medley, a congeries, 
abounding in air and water, sun and heat. There is 
no difference between such people and those who 


2 Cf. Mor. 649 5, 687 a, 696 B; Aristotle, Metaphysics, A 
3 (983 b 23 ff.) : Pseudo-Aristotle, Problemata, 949 Ὁ 29. 

® Cf. Mor. 696 zB. 

¢ Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 247 a and 948 B supra with the note. 
For earth as Hestia see also Dio Chrys. xxxvi. 46 (L.C.L.) with 
Crosby’s note; Dion. Hal. ii. 66.3; Ovid, Fasti, vi. 267 ; 
Koster, Mnemosyne, Suppl. iii (1951), p. 7, n. 6. 

@ Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok.*, ii, p. 48. 


281 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(955) φύσει καὶ πρώτως θερμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ζέον ὕδωρ ἢ 
τὸν διάπυρον σίδηρον ἀποφαινομένων, ὅτι τούτων 
μὲν ἅπτονται Kat προσθιγγάνουσι,͵ τοῦ δὲ πρώτου 

“- \ > / \ ” > ς ~ > 
καθαροῦ καὶ οὐρανίου πυρὸς αἴσθησιν bu ἁφῆς οὐ 
λαμβάνουσιν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ οὗτοι τῆς ἐν βάθει γῆς, 
ἣν μάλιστα γῆν ἄν τις νοήσειεν αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν 
ἀποκεκριμένην τῶν ἄλλων. δεῖγμα δ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐστι 

> ~ \ \ / \ \ > / \ 
Β κἀνταῦθα περὶ τὰς πέτρας: πολὺ yap ἐκ βάθους Kai 

ὦ ey > , 7 2 , € an 
οὐ pad.ov ἀνασχέσθαι προσβάλλουσι κρύος. ot δὲ 
ψυχροτέρου ποτοῦ δεόμενοι χάλικας ἐμβάλλουσιν 
εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ: γίνεται γὰρ οὐλότερον καὶ στομοῦται 
παρὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν λίθων ψυχρότητα, πρόσφατον 
καὶ ἄκρατον ἀναφερομένην. 

22. Τοὺς οὖν πάλαι σοφοὺς καὶ λογίους ἄμικτα 
θέσθαι τὰ ἐπίγεια καὶ τὰ οὐράνια χρὴ νομίζειν, οὐ 
τοῖς τόποις ὥσπερ ἐπὶ ζυγοῦ πρὸς τὰ κάτω καὶ 
ἄνω βλέποντας, ἀλλὰ τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν δυνάμεων 
τὰ μὲν θερμὰ καὶ λαμπρὰ καὶ ταχέα καὶ κοῦφα τῇ 
> ig \ > / / / \ \ 
ἀθανάτῳ καὶ ἀιδίῳ φύσει προσνέμοντας, τὰ δὲ 

\ \ \ \ / ~ \ > / 
σκοτεινὰ καὶ ψυχρὰ Kat Ppadea φθιτῶν καὶ ἐνέρων 
οὐκ εὐδαίμονα κλῆρον ἀποφαίνοντας." ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ 

Ο σῶμα τοῦ ζῴου, μέχρι μὲν ἔμπνουν ἐστὶ καὶ θαλερόν, 
ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ λέγουσι, θερμότητι χρῆται καὶ ζωῇ: 
γενόμενον δὲ τούτων ἔρημον καὶ ἀπολειφθὲν ἐν 
μόνῃ τῇ τῆς γῆς μοίρᾳ ψυχρότης εὐθὺς ἴσχει καὶ 
1 προσθιγγάνουσι Meziriacus : προστυγχάνουσι. 
2 προσβάλλουσι ‘Turnebus : προβάλλουσι. 


3 ἀποφαίνοντας B, as Kronenberg had conjectured: ἀπο- 
φήναντας. 


282 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 955 


declare that the aether 7 is not naturally and prim- 
ordially hot, but rather that scalding water or red 
hot iron are—because they can feel and touch these, 
but are unable to touch and feel the primordially 
pure and heavenly fire. Nor likewise are these 
persons able to touch and feel the earth at its bottom- 
most, which is what we particularly mean by earth— 
earth set off alone by itself, without admixture of any 
other element. But we can see a sample of such 
earthiness in that statement about the cliffs ὃ that 
display from deep down so intense a cold that it can 
scarcely be endured. Then, too, those who want a 
colder drink throw pebbles into the water,’ which 
becomes thicker and denser through the coldness that 
streams upward, fresh and undiluted, from the stones. 

22. We must, therefore, believe that the reason 
why ancient learned men held that there is no com- 
merce between earthly and celestial things was not 
that they distinguished up and down by relative 
position, as we do in the case of scales; but rather 
it was the difference in powers that led them to assign 
such things as are hot and bright, swift and buoyant, 
to the eternal and imperishable part of nature, while 
darkness and cold and slowness they considered the 
unhappy heritage of transitory and submerged beings. 
Then too, the body of a living creature, as long as it 
breathes and flourishes, does, as the poets say, enjoy 
both warmth and life 2; but when these forsake it 
and it is abandoned in the realm of earth alone, 
immediately frigidity and congelation seize upon it. 

@ Cf. 951 D supra. 

> Cf. 954 c-D supra. 

¢ Cf. Mor. 690 r—691 c. 


4 Perhaps some such passage as Homer, /liad, xxii. 363 is 
meant. 


283 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


jos, ὡς ev παντὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ γεώδει κατὰ φύσιν 
(955) κρύος, ὡς ἐν παντὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ γ 

ερμότητος ἐνυπαρχούσης. 

23. Ταῦτ᾽, ὦ Φαβωρῖνε, τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὑφ᾽ ἑτέ- 
ρων παράβαλλε: κἂν μήτε λείπηται τῇ πιθανότητι 
μήθ᾽ ὑπερέχη πολύ, χαίρειν ἔα τὰς δόξας, τὸ ἐπ- 
έχειν ἐν τοῖς ἀδήλοις τοῦ συγκατατίθεσθαι φιλο- 
σοφώτερον ἡγούμενος. 


@ See the introduction to this essay. 


284 


THE PRINCIPLE OF COLD, 955 


since warmth naturally resides in anything else rather 
than in the earthy. 

23. Compare these statements, Favorinus, with the 
pronouncements of others; and if these notions of 
mine are neither less probable nor much more plaus- 
ible than those of others, say farewell to dogma, being 
convinced as you are that it is more philosophic to 
suspend judgement when the truth is obscure than 
to take sides.” 


285 







a ; 7 ἘΝ Ri on 
(9554 apeiat age mn 


iit iw δἰμίϊτοι 






ebrtiGnd 16 


+ Bee than ἴσθι 


MELLEIIER BIR AOR AW, AoDe 
iS MORES Us Ets 
(AQUANE AN IGNIS UTILIOR) 


INTRODUCTION 


THERE seems to be no reason to discuss this little work 
in detail, since F. H. Sandbach α has shown con- 
clusively that it cannot be genuine. Still more might 
be added to his proofs, sound and thorough as they 
are ; but this is not the place to slay the slain. It is 
the more to be regretted that Ziegler, in the article 
on Plutarch in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopddie, has 
not had access to Sandbach’s work,’ though he does 
refer to Xylander’s athetesis, only to reject it, and 
might have mentioned Meziriacus’ as well. 

Sandbach well observes: “ΤῸ write an exercise 
on the comparative utility of fire and water may 
seem so difficult to us moderns who do not have such 
tasks as part of our education, that we do not recog- 
nize how badly the topic is here handled. . . . While 
it is possible that Plutarch wrote this work as a parody, 
or when a schoolboy, or under some strange circum- 
stances, yet . . . the most probable view is that a 
miserable sophistical exercise on the subject Whether 
fire or water is more useful was fathered on the author 
of a diversion entitled Whether land- or water-animals 
are more intelligent, just as the Consolatio ad Apollonium 

@ Class. Quart. xxxiii (1939), pp. 198-202. G. Kowolski, 
De Plut. scriptorum iuvenilium colore rhetorico, Cracow, 
1918, pp. 258 ff., also denied the authenticity. 


» This is very puzzling since Ziegler later (936) cites the 
same article as authoritative on rhythmical matters. 


288 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 


was ascribed to the author of a consolation addressed 
to his wife, or the Lives of the Ten Orators to the author 
of some more famous biographies.”’ 

The text is extremely bad, as may be seen by 
examining Wegehaupt’s topheavy ® apparatus in 
Χάριτες fiir Friedrich Leo (Berlin, Weidmann, 1911), 
pp. 158-169. It is possible, to be sure, that part at 
least of the difficulty of the text is due to the author. 
Less emendation than that admitted here might not 
seriously damage what is irreparable nonsense in any 
case. Some attempt has been made to reproduce the 
childish style of the original. 

The work is no. 206 in the catalogue of Lamprias.? 


¢ Wegehaupt collated some 34 mss. for his edition, all of 
which he cites separately. 

> The new Teubner edition of this and the following essays 
appeared while this volume was in proof, so that only the most 
necessary changes and corrections could be made. In this 
essay (since Wegehaupt’s edition was already available) they 
have not been so plentiful as in the subsequent ones, for which 
Hubert has now provided the first truly critical edition that 
these works have ever had. 


VOL. XII L 289 


(955) ΠΕΡΙ TOY TOTEPON YAQP H ILYP 
XPHZIMOTEPON 


D 1. “ἤΑριστον μὲν ὕδωρ, 6 δὲ χρυσὸς αἰθόμενον 
πῦρ᾽᾿ 
σ e 
E φησὶν ὁ Ilivdapos: ὥσθ᾽ οὗτος μὲν δευτέραν ἄντι- 
A \ / ” A \ Ace / 
κρυς τῷ πυρὶ χώραν ἔδωκε: συμφωνεῖ δὲ καὶ “Hai- 
οδος εἰπὼν 
cc \ / / / +) 
ἤτοι μὲν πρώτιστα χάος γένετο 
A / \ > / A \ Ad ~ 
tots πλείστοις γὰρ ὠνομακέναι δοκεῖ TO ὕδωρ τοῦ- 
\ ~ 
τον TOV τρόπον παρὰ τὴν χύσιν. ἀλλὰ TO μὲν τῶν 
ςε ~ 
μαρτύρων ἑκατέροις" ἴσον: ἐπεὶ Kal TO πῦρ εἰσιν οἱ 
~ \ > e 
τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν ἀποφαινόμενοι Kal οἷον σπέρμα 
~ ~ ~ \ 
τοῦτ᾽ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ Te πάντα ποιεῖν Kal εἰς ἑαυτὸ 
> / \ \ > 3 > / \ 
ἐκλαμβάνειν κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν. ἀφέμενοι δὲ 
~ ~ / 
τῶν ἀνδρῶν, σκεψώμεθα τοὺς εἰς ἑκάτερον λόγους 
πῇ μᾶλλον ἄγουσιν ἡμᾶς. 
> > κ᾿ « ἡ 
2. *Ap’ οὖν οὐ χρησιμώτερον ἐκεῖνο, οὗ πάντοτε 
΄σ > 
F καὶ διηνεκῶς δεόμεθα καὶ πλείστου, καθάπερ ἐργα- 
“- « / σ 
λεῖον καὶ ὄργανον καὶ νὴ Δία φίλος ὁ πάσης ὥρας 
~ ¢ \ 
. καὶ παντὸς καιροῦ παρὼν ἕτοιμος; καὶ μὴν TO μὲν 


1 ἑκατέροις Bernardakis : ἑκάτερος or -ov. 


« Olympians, i. 1. ὑ Theogony, 116. 
290 


WHETHER ΨΚ ΘΕ WATER 
IS MORE USEFUL 


i. Water is best, but gold is a flaming fire, 


says Pindar.* He, therefore, bluntly assigns the 
second place to fire ; and Hesiod ἢ agrees with him 
in the words 


And first of all came Chaos into being ; 


for most people believe that this is his name for water 
because it flows (chysis).° Yet the balance of wit- 
nesses on both sides seems to be equal. There are, 
in fact, some ὦ who state that fire is the first principle 
of the universe and, like a seed, creates everything out 
of itself and receives all things into itself when the 
conflagration occurs.’ Ignoring the authors, let us 
examine the arguments on both sides and see where 
they will lead us. 

2. Is not that element the more useful of which 
most of all, everywhere, invariably, we stand in need 
as a household tool and, I swear, a friend, ready to 
help us at any time, in any emergency? Yet fire is 


¢ Etymologizing (as in Mor. 948 E-F supra) chaos from 
chysis, ** diffusion of liquid.” 

Δ The Stoics: cf., ¢.g., von Arnim, S.V.F. i, p. 27 (Zeno, 
frag. 98); cf. Mor. 1053 a-B; 1067 4; 1077 ἘΣ 

€ On the Universal Conflagration of the Stoics see von 
Arnim, op. cit. ii, pp. 183 ff.; on that of Heraclitus, Cher- 
niss, Aristotle’s Criticism of the Presocratics, p. 29, n. 108. 


291 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


~ , / / ” » σ΄ \ / 
(955) πῦρ οὐ πάντοτε χρήσιμον, ἔστι δ᾽ ὅτε καὶ βαρυνό- 
A > / ~ » σ / Α 
μεθα καὶ ἀποσπώμεθα: τοῦ δ᾽ ὕδατος χρεία καὶ 
~ / ~ 
χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους καὶ νοσοῦσι Kal ὑγιαίνουσι, 
956 \ \ θ᾽ ¢ 7, \ > ” ee P 
νυκτὸς Kal μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν: καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτ᾽ ἄνθρωπος 
" A > / \ > /, ae 5 / Ψ 
οὐ δεῖται. ἀμέλει τοὺς ἀποθανόντας “᾿ ἀλίβαντας 
». ξ = ~ «ce / > det / 4 / 
καλοῦσιν ὡς ἐνδεεῖς “᾿ λιβάδος,᾽᾽ τουτέστιν ὑγρό- 
\ ~ ~ ~ 
τητος, καὶ παρὰ τοῦτο στερουμένους τοῦ ζῆν. Kal 
Μ \ \ - λλά 1 an δ᾽ 5 Yd 5 
ἄνευ [LEV πυρὸς ἣν πολλάκις, υδατος οὐδέποτ 
» ” \ 19 5 = we, = ͵ 
ἄνθρωπος. ἔτι δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἅμα τῇ πρώτῃ 
.. .. > ~ 
καταβολῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων χρησιμώτερον τοῦ ὕστερον 
~ \ \ la - 
εὑρεθέντος: δῆλον γὰρ ὡς τὸ μὲν ὄντως" ἀναγκαῖον 
ε , ” \ \ , in 7 ἜΣ 
ἡ φύσις ἔδωκε: τὸ δὲ περιουσίᾳ τῆς χρήσεως τύχη 
/ - > 
Kal μηχανή Tis εὗρεν. ὕδωρ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν 
» ~ 9.55 , “ 3 θ 7 50 / ¢ x A / 
εἰπεῖν ὅτ᾽ οὐκ ἦν ἀνθρώποις οὐδέ τις εὑρετὴς λέγε- 
~ an“ ε \ 
ται θεῶν ἢ ἡρώων: σχεδὸν yap γενομένων εὐθὺς 
~ ~ ~ ¢ \ 
B ὑπῆρχε Kal τὸ γεγενῆσθαι παρεῖχεν. ἡ δὲ πυρὸς 
Ρ. > , / \ , οἷ ip Bh 
χρῆσις ἐχθές, φασί, καὶ πρῴην ὑπὸ Ipounféws 
. . . βίος πυρός, οὐκ ἄνευ δ᾽ ὕδατος ἦν. καὶ τὸ 
~ 4: 
μὲν πλάσμα τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι ποιητικὸν ἀποδείκνυσιν 
ε 5 [ wn / ” \ > 7 / \ 
ὁ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς Bios: ἔστι yap ἀνθρώπων γένη τινὰ 
χωρὶς πυρὸς ποιούμενα τὴν δίαιταν, ἄοικα καὶ 
» / \ c / \ / > ¢ 4 
ἀνέστια καὶ ὑπαίθρια: καὶ Διογένης δ᾽ 6 κύων 
κι “4 
ἥκιστα προσεχρῆτο πυρί, ὥστε καὶ πολύποδα 
καταπιὼν ὠμόν, “᾿ οὕτως ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν;,᾽ εἶπεν, “ὦ 


πολλάκις Post with one Ms.: πολλά (πάλαι van Herwerden). 
ὄντως Meziriacus ; οὕτως. 

τύχη Leonicus: μάχη (τέχνη Wyttenbach). 

Lacuna after Ilpounféws, indicated by Reiske, variously 


-» ὦ wo " 


292 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 955-956 


not always useful ; sometimes, indeed, we find it too 
much and interrupt our use of it. But water is used 
both winter and summer, sick and well, night and 
day: there is no time when a man does not need it. 
That, of course, is the reason why the dead are called 
alibantes, meaning that they are without libas, “ mois- 
ture,’ 7 and for lack of that deprived of life. Man 
has often existed without fire, but without water 
never. Besides, that which, from the beginning, 
was coincidental with the inception of man is more 
useful than that which was discovered later ; for it 
is obvious that Nature bestowed the one as vitally 
necessary, while the other was brought to light by 
luck or contrivance for a superfluous use. Now, none 
may tell of a time when water was unknown to man, 
nor is any god or hero said to be its discoverer ; it 
was, in fact, at hand instantly when man appeared 
and was itself the cause of his appearance. But the 
use of fire, they say,? was discovered only a day or 
two ago by Prometheus ; (consequently all our pre- 
ceding life was deprived of) fire, though it was not 
without water. And that this is no poetic fiction is 
proved by present modes of living; for there are 
certain races of man who live without fire, with no 
house or hearth, under the open sky. And Diogenes ¢ 
the Cynic reduced the use of fire to a minimum, so 
that he even swallowed a squid raw, remarking, 
“ Thus, gentlemen, do I risk my life for you.” But 

* Cf. Mor. 736 a; Galen, De Temperament. i. 3 (i, p. 522 K.). 

> As, 6.5.. Aeschylus, Prometheus, 254. The following 
words in lozenge brackets are conjecturally supplied. 


¢ This anecdote is told with rather more point and relevance 
in 995 c-p infra. 


supplied. The required sense is given by Post’s supplement 
(ἐδόθη ὥστ᾽ ἐστερημένος ἡμῖν ἦν πᾶς ὁ τέως). 


208 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Μ) / Μ 
(956) ἄνδρες, παραβάλλομαι.᾽᾽ χωρὶς δ᾽ ὕδατος οὔτε 
/ ~ 
καλόν τις ἐνόμισε ζῆν οὔτε δυνατόν. 
K \ / ἣ ~ \ ~ > θ / > 
8. Kai τί μικρολογοῦμαι τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπ- 
΄ ” ~ > 
ερχόμενος φύσιν; πολλῶν yap ὄντων, μᾶλλον ὃ 
Ο ἀπείρων γενῶν, τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων σχεδὸν μόνον 
οἷδε πυρὸς χρῆσιν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ἀπύροις χρῆται 
διαίταις καὶ τροφαῖς, καὶ βίος αὐτοῖς νεμομένοις, 
«ς ~ lal 
ἱπταμένοις, ἕρπουσιν, ἀπὸ ῥιζῶν Kal καρπῶν Kat 
~ ” 
σαρκῶν ἄνευ πυρός: ὕδατος δὲ χωρὶς οὐκ ἔναλον 
> p Reed} > \ A 99.9 >] / \ \ \ 
οὐδὲν" οὐδὲ xEpoatov οὐδ᾽ αἰθέριον: Kal yap τὰ 
~ Φ \ 
σαρκοβόρα τῶν ζῴων, ὧν ἔνιά φησι μὴ πίνειν 
᾿Αριστοτέλης, τῷ γ᾽ ἐντὸς" ὑγρῷ χρώμενα διαζῇ. 
τοῦτ᾽ οὖν χρησιμώτερον, οὗ μηδεμία ζωῆς φύσις 
ἄνευ ἵσταται καὶ διαμένει. 
/ > \ ~ / Lee af? t 
4. Metiwpev ἀπὸ τῶν χρωμένων ἐπὶ ταῦθ᾽ οἷς 
“ \ > 
χρώμεθα, φυτὰ Kal καρπούς. τούτων ἃ μὲν οὐδ 
“ “Ἠ / Δ > 7 \ > / 
ὅλως θερμοῦ μετείληφεν, ἃ δ᾽ ἥκιστα καὶ ἀδήλως: 
ἡ δ᾽ ὑγρὰ φύσις βλαστάνοντα πάντα παρέχεται, 
D αὐξανόμενα καὶ καρποφοροῦντα- καὶ τί με δεῖ κατ- 
A λ 4 Uo \ oo» \ \ r \ 
αριθμεῖσθαι μέλι' καὶ οἶνον Kat ἔλαιον καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ 
~ > 
ὅσα τρυγῶμεν καὶ ἀμέλγομεν καὶ βλίττομεν" ἐν 
΄- ,ὔ ~ Ss 
φανερῷ κείμενα, ὅπου γε Kal ὁ πυρός, δοκῶν εἶναι 
~ ~ ~ ~ \ / \ / 
τῆς ξηρᾶς τροφῆς, μεταβολῇ καὶ σήψει καὶ διαχύσει 
τοῦ ὑγροῦ γίνεται; 
\ \ \ rt Δ / / 
5. Καὶ μὴν καὶ χρησιμώτερον ὃ μηδέποτε BAd- 
1 γὰρ ὄντων Meziriacus : παρόντων. 
2 οὐδὲν added by Bernardakis. 
3. γ᾽ ἐντὸς Amyot: ὄντως or ὄντων. 


4 μέλι Wegehaupt: μὲν. 
> βλίττομεν Wyttenbach, confirmed by one ms. : βλέπομεν. 


204 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 956 


without water no one ever thought it good, or even 
possible, to live. 

3. And why do I split hairs by discussing merely 
human nature? For though there are many, or 
rather countless, sorts of creatures, man is practically 
the only one that knows the use of fire, while all the 
others live and feed without it : they subsist, whether 
they range abroad or fly or crawl, upon roots or pro- 
duce or flesh, all without fire ; but without water no 
creature of the sea or land or air ever existed. For 
even flesh-eating animals, some of which Aristotle 4 
says do not drink, nevertheless keep alive by using 
the fluids in the flesh. That element, therefore, 
without which no living nature can subsist or endure 
is the more useful. 

4. Let us pass from the people who use fire to the 
things that we use, namely plants and produce,? of 
which some are completely devoid of heat, while 
others have an infinitesimal and uncertain amount. 
Moisture, however, is the element in nature that 
makes them all burgeon, growing and bearing fruit. 
And why should I enumerate honey and wine and 
oil and all the rest that come to us from the vintage, 
the milking of herds, or taking off of honey—and it 
is obvious where they belong “—when even wheat 
itself, though it is classed as a dry food, moves into 
the category of liquids by alteration, fermentation, 
and deliquescence ? ὦ 

5. Moreover, what is never detrimental is more 

* Historia Animal. viii. 3 (601 b). 

> ΚΕ This must be one of the most remarkable transitions 
in literature ’’ (Sandbach, op. cit. p. 200). 

° That is, they must be classed as liquids. 

4 Cf. 968 a infra: here, however, the author seems to be 


talking about beer. 
295 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


a \ > ee: ee , €..N94€ 
(956) πτει. πῦρ μὲν οὖν ῥέον' ὀλεθριώτατον, ἡ δ᾽ ὕδατος 

/ \ \ A ᾽ / 

ύσις οὐδέποτε βλαβερά. καὶ μὴν δυεῖν ὠφελιμώ- 
τερον τὸ εὐτελέστερον καὶ χωρίς τινος παρασκευῆς 
τὴν ἐξ αὑτοῦ παρέχον ὠφέλειαν: ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ 

aA “- \ ~ 
E τοῦ πυρὸς χορηγίας δεῖται Kat ὕλης: διὰ τοῦτο 
μετέχουσιν αὐτοῦ πλέον πλούσιοι πενήτων, βασιλεῖς 
> ~ \ > “ \ a 3 ” / 
ἰδιωτῶν: τὸ δ᾽ ὕδωρ Kat τοῦτ᾽ ἔχει φιλάνθρωπον, 

\ / A > / 
τὴν ἰσότητα, TO ὅμοιον: οὐ δεῖται yap ὀργάνων 

29. > / > / > \ > / 
οὐδ ἐργαλείων, ἀπροσδεές, αὐτοτελὲς ἀγαθόν. 

6. "Ere μήν, ὃ ὁ πολλαπλασιαζόμενον" τὴν ὠφέλειαν 
ἀπόλλυσιν, ἀχρηστότερον" τοιοῦτον δὲ τὸ πῦρ, οἷον 
θηρίον παμφάγον καὶ δαπανῶν τῶν παρακειμένων, 
καὶ μεθόδῳ καὶ τέχνῃ μᾶλλον καὶ μετριότητι ἢ" τῇ 
αὑτοῦ φύσει ὠφέλιμον: τὸ δ᾽ ὕδωρ οὐδέποτε φοβε- 
οόν. καὶ μὴν δυεῖν τὸ μετὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου χρησιμώ- 
τερον: πῦρ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται τὸ ὑγρὸν οὐδὲ 

΄ ~ / 

Ε τῆ δι’ αὐτοῦ κοινωνίᾳ χρήσιμον, ὕδωρ δ᾽ ἐστὶ 
\ ~ ~ 

μετὰ πυρὸς ὠφέλιμον: τὰ γοῦν θερμὰ τῶν ὑδάτων 

ἀκέσιμα καὶ πρὸς θεραπείαν εὐδιάθετα. καὶ πῦρ 

\ ¢ \ , ΝΜ “ “ > e \ 
μὲν ὑγρὸν οὐκ ἄν τις εὕροι, ὕδωρ δ᾽ ws ψυχρὸν 
οὕτω καὶ θερμὸν ὠφέλιμον ἀνθρώπῳ. 

vy ~ 

Kai μήν, τεττάρων ὄντων τῶν στοιχείων, TO 

ὕδωρ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πέμπτον, ὡς ἂν τις εἴποι, πεποίηκε 
957 στοιχεῖον τὴν θάλασσαν, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκείνων ὠφέ- 

- U ~ 
λιμον τῶν τ᾽ ἄλλων ἕνεκεν Kal μάλιστα THs ἐπι- 
> = » 

μιξίας: ἄγριον οὖν ἡμῶν ὄντα καὶ ἀσύμβολον τὸν 
βίον τοῦτο τὸ στοιχεῖον συνῆψε καὶ τέλειον ἐποίησε, 
διορθούμενον ταῖς παρ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἐπικουρίαις καὶ 


1 ῥέον Meziriacus and one Ms. : ῥᾷδιον or ῥᾷον. 
2 πολλαπλασιαζόμενον Leonicus : πολυπλασιαζόμενον. 


8 ἢ added by Leonicus. 
296 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 956-957 


useful. Now fire, when it forms a stream, is most 
destructive ; but the nature of water is never harmful. 
Then again, of two elements that is more beneficial 
which is cheaper and provides its help without any 
preparation. Now the use of fire requires a supply 
of fuel, for which reason rich people have more of 
it than poor, and kings than private persons ; but 
water has another merit in service to man, that of 
equality, with no discrimination. For it needs no 
tools or implements, being a self-sufficient, self- 
fulfilling good. 

6. Then too, that which by multiplication destroys 
its own contribution is the less useful. Such a thing 
is fire which, like an all-devouring beast, consumes 
everything near, so that it is useful rather by skilful 
handling and craft and moderation in use than by 
its own nature; but water is never dangerous. 
Further, of two things the one which may be joined 
with its fellow is more useful. Now fire does not admit 
moisture and is of no use when in conjunction with 
it; but water is of service when combined with fire, 
for hot water is healing and well adapted to medicinal 
purposes. A watery fire you will never see; but 
water is as useful to mankind when hot as when cold. 

7. Furthermore, though there are but four ele- 
ments,” water provides from itself a fifth, so to say, 
the sea, one no less beneficial than the others, especi- 
ally for commerce among other things. This element, 
therefore, when our life was savage and unsociable, 
linked it together and made it complete, redressing 
defects by mutual assistance and exchange and so 


« Cf. Mor. 948 p above; in 729 B the sea is called the 
** naturally hostile element.” Α 


4 εὐδιάθετα Wyttenbach : εὐαίσθητα or ἀναίσθητα. 


207 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(957) ἀντιδόσεσι, κοινωνίαν δ᾽ ἐργαζόμενον καὶ φιλίαν. 
Ἡράκλειτος μὲν οὖν, “᾿ εἰ μὴ ἥλιος,᾽᾽ φησίν, “ ἦν, 
εὐφρόνη ἂν ἦν ᾿᾿. ἔστι δ᾽ εἰπεῖν, ὡς, εἰ μὴ θάλαττα 
ἦν, πάντων av’ ἀγριώτατον ζῷον καὶ ἐνδεέστατον" 
6 ἄνθρωπος ἦν. νυνὶ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν παρ᾽ ᾿Ινδῶν ap- 
πελον τοῖς “EXAnow, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ᾿Ελλάδος καρπῶν 
χρῆσιν τοῖς ἐπέκεινα τῆς" θαλάσσης ἔδωκεν, ἐκ Φοι- 

Β νίκης δὲ γράμματα μνημόσυνα λήθης ἐκόμισεν, 
καὶ" ἄοινον καὶ ἄκαρπον καὶ ἀπαίδευτον ἐκώλυσεν 
εἶναι τὸ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων γένος. πῶς οὖν οὐ 
χρησιμώτερον ὕδωρ στοιχείῳ" περιττεῦον; 

8. Ti’ πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἄν τις ἐντεῦθεν ἔχων 
λέγοι; διότι τέτταρα μὲν στοιχεῖα θεῷ καθάπερ 
τεχνίτῃ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἐργασίαν ὑποκείμενα, 
τούτων δ᾽ αὖ πάλιν ev’ ἀλλήλοις διαφορὰ ἁπλῆν" 
γῆ μὲν καὶ ὕδωρ ὑποβέβληται “δίκην ὕλης ποιού- 
μενα καὶ πλαττόμενα καὶ “μετέχοντα κόσμου καὶ 
τάξεως καὶ τοῦ φύειν γε καὶ γεννᾶν, ὅσον ἂν 
μεταλάβῃ παρ᾽ ἑτέρων, πνεύματος καὶ πυρὸς" 

C ποιούντων καὶ δημιουργούντων καὶ κείμενα νεκρὰ 
τέως ἐπὶ τὴν γένεσιν ἀνιστάντων" τῶν δὲ δυεῖν 
τούτων αὖθις τὸ πῦρ ἄρχει καὶ ἡγεμονεύει. δῆλον 
δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς" γῆ τε γὰρ ἄνευ θερμῆς οὐσίας 

1 ἂν added by Bernardakis. 


2 ἐνδεέστατον Meziriacus : ἀναιδέστατος or -ov. 


3 τῆς Xylander: ὁ τῆς. 4 καὶ added by Diibner. 
5 (ἐνὶ) στοιχείῳ ὃ W.C. Η. 8 τῇ Post: 7. 
7 ἐν added by van Herwerden. 
8 ἁπλῇ Post: πλὴν. ® ye Reiske: ye φασί. 


10 πνεύματος Kai πυρὸς Reiske: πνεῦμα μὲν καὶ πῦρ. 





α Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok. i. 173, frag. B 99. In 
Mor. 98 ca fuller and more appropriate version is given; but 
see now H. Frankel, Wege und Formen, p. 270 and n. 1. 


298 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 957 


bringing about co-operation and friendship. Now 
Heraclitus 4 declares, “‘ If there were no sun, it would 
be perpetual night ”’; in the same way we may say 
that if there were no sea, man would be the most 
savage and destitute of all creatures. But as it is, 
the sea brought the Greeks the vine from India, from 
Greece transmitted the use of grain across the sea, 
from Phoenicia imported letters as a memorial 
against forgetfulness,” thus preventing the greater 
part of mankind from being wineless, grainless, and 
unlettered. How, then, should water not be more 
useful when it has the advantage over fire of one more 
element ? ¢ 

8. What could anyone find to say on the other side 
from this point on? This, that God, the master work- 
man, had as material four elements from which to 
construct the universe. Among these, again, there 
is a simple mutual distinction, namely, that earth 
and water are a foundation at the bottom of the 
universe, being, like raw material, the substance of 
which things are constructed and moulded, having 
just so much form and organization, and indeed of 
capacity for growth and procreation, as is imparted 
to them by the other elements, air and fire, which 
are makers and artisans and rouse them, lying lifeless 
as they were until then, to the act of creation. Be- 
tween these two, again, fire and air, there is the dis- 
tinction that fire assumes the rule and leadership. 
This is clear by induction’: earth without warmth 


> Cf. Euripides, frag. 578 (p. 542 Nauck). 

¢ For this delightful absurdity see Sandbach, op. cit. p. 
199, n. 4. 

4 Possibly ; but the argument hardly demonstrates this. 
The text is corrupt and a different solution than that adopted 
here is proposed by ΝΜ, Adler (Wien. Stud. xxxi. 308). 


299 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(957) ἄγονος Kat ἄκαρπος: τὸ δὲ πῦρ κρατῆσαν' καὶ 
διακέαν" παρίστησιν εἰς τὴν γένεσιν ὀργῶσαν"" οὐ- 
δεμίαν γὰρ αἰτίαν εὕροι τις ἄν, du’ ἣν ἄγονοι πέτραι 
καὶ τὰ κατεσκληκότα τῶν ὁρῶν πλὴν᾽ ὅτι πυρὸς 
οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἢ ὀλίγον μετέσχηκε. 

9. Τὸ δ᾽ ὅλον τοσοῦτον ἀπέχει πρὸς σωτηρίαν 
ἢ ἑτέρων γένεσιν τὸ ὕδωρ αὐτοτελὲς εἶναι, ὥστε 
καὶ αὐτῷ φθορὰ πυρὸς ἔνδεια: συνέχει γὰρ ἡ θερ- 
μότης ἕκαστον ἐν τῷ εἶναι καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας 

1) φυλάττει καθάπερ καὶ τἄλλα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ: ἀπ- 
έχοντος δὲ καὶ ἐνδεήσαντος σήπεται καὶ θάνατος 
ὕδατι καὶ ὄλεθρος ἐπίλειψις θερμότητος. ἀμέλει τὰ 
λιμναῖα καὶ ὅσα στάσιμα τῶν ὑδάτων καί τιν᾽" 
ἀδιεξόδοις ἐγκαθήμενα κοιλότησι μοχθηρὰ καὶ τὲ: 
λευτῶντα σήπεται τῷ κινήσεως ἥκιστα μετέχειν, ἣ 
τὸ θερμὸν ἐν ἑκάστοις ῥιπίζουσα τηρεῖ. διόπερ" τὰ 
μάλιστα φερόμενα καὶ ῥέοντα τῶν ὑδάτων, διὰ τὴν 
κίνησιν συνεχομένης τῆς θερμότητος, οὕτω καὶ 
προσαγορεύομεν, ζῆν λέγοντες. πῶς τοίνυν δυεῖν 
οὐκ ὠφελιμώτερον, ὃ τῷ ἑτέρῳ τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ 
εἶναι παρέσχηκε, καθάπερ τὸ πῦρ τῷ ὕδατι; καὶ 

E μήν, οὗ παντάπασιν ἀπαλλαγέντος φθείρεται τὸ 
ζῷον, τοῦτ᾽ ὠφελιμώτερον" δῆλον γὰρ ws" οὗ 
στερούμενον οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι, τοῦτο καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν 
παρέσχηκεν, ὅτ᾽ ἦν. ὑγρότης μὲν οὖν καὶ τοῖς 
τεθνηκόσι πάρεστι καὶ οὐκ ἐξήρηται παντάπασιν" 
ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐσήπετο τὰ νεκρὰ τῶν σωμάτων, τῆς 

1 κρατῆσαν W.C. Η. (after κεκρατηκὸς Post) : expaos, edxpaes, 
expuev. 2 διακέαν Post: διαχέαν (or τῶν, τον), διαχυθὲν. 

8. ὀργῶσαν Reiske and one ms. : ὀργῶντα, ἐργῶντα. ἐνεργῶντα, 
and the like (Paton would add πάντα : “* swell to bring forth 


all things ”’). 4 πλὴν Naber: πᾶσιν or ἢ. 
5 Some mss. have τινὰ ἐν. 


300 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 957 


is barren and unfruitful, but fire, when it takes 
possession and inflames, causes it to swell to the 
point of generation ; and it is impossible to find any 
other reason why rocks and the bare bones of moun- 
tains are barren except that they have either no part 
at all, or very little share, in fire. 

9. And, in general, water is.so far from being self- 
sufficient for the preservation or generation of other 
things that the want of fire is water’s destruction. 
For heat maintains everything in its proper being and 
keeps it in its proper substance, water itself as well 
as everything else. When fire withdraws and fails, 
water putrefies : the dearth of heat is the death and 
destruction of water. It is, of course, marsh waters 
and such as are stagnant, some too that have drained 
into depressions with no outlet, that are bad % and 
finally putrefy ὃ because they have very little motion, 
which preserves everything by stirring up its heat. 
This is the reason why we commonly say that those 
waters are “living” which have most motion and 
the strongest current; the heat is maintained by 
their motion. How, then, should that not be the more 
useful of two things which has provided what is 
necessary for the other’s existence, as fire does for 
water? And surely that is the more useful, the lack 
of which, if it be entirely taken away, causes the 
living creature to die. For it is obvious that anything 
without which a creature cannot live must have been 
a necessary cause of its existence, while it did exist. 
Now even corpses have moisture which does not 
entirely vanish ; otherwise dead bodies would not 


α That is, “‘ salt,’ as, for example, the Dead Sea. 
> Cf. Mor. 1129 p, 725 Ὁ : Athenaeus, 46 b-c. 


iat διόπερ Wyttenbach : περὶ. 7 ws Wegehaupt: ὡς τὸ. 
301 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(957) σήψεως εἰς ὑγρὸν οὐκ' οὔσης ἐκ ξηροῦ μεταβολῆς, 
μᾶλλον δ᾽ ὑγρῶν ἐν σαρκὶ φθορᾶς. θάνατος δ᾽ οὐκ 
ἄλλο τι πλὴν ἔκλειψις θερμοῦ παντελής" ψυχρότατοι 
τοίνυν οἱ νεκροί: καὶ τὰς ἀκμάς, εἴ τις ἐπιχειροίη," 
τῶν ξυρῶν" ἀπαμβλύνουσι δι᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ψυχρότη- 

F tos. καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ ζῴῳ τὰ ἥκιστα μετέχοντα 
πυρὸς ἀναισθητότατα," καθάπερ ὀστᾶ καὶ τρίχες 
καὶ τὰ πόρρωθεν ἀφεστῶτα τῆς καρδίας: σχεδὸν 
γὰρ" μείζων" ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς γίνεται παρουσίας 
διαφορά. φυτὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ καρποὺς οὐχ ἡ ὑγρότης 
5 / > > « 3 / \ 
ἀναδίδωσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἡ θερμὴ ὑγρότης" ἀμέλει τὰ 
ψυχρὰ τῶν ὑδάτων “ἧττον 7 οὐδ᾽ ὅλως γόνιμα. 
καΐτοι ff εἰ TH αὑτοῦ φύσει τὸ ὕδωρ καρποφόρον, 

958 δεῖ" πάντοτε καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἀναφέρειν καρπούς: τὸ 
δὲ τοὐναντίον καὶ βλαβερόν ἐ ἐστιν. 
> A \ \ \ « 
10; Az’ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς. πρὸς μὲν ΤΡ eee 
πυρὸς χρῆσιν ὕδατος οὐ προσδεόμεθα, ἀλλὰ τοὐ- 
ναντίον ἐμποδὼν γίνεται: κατασβέννυσι γὰρ καὶ 
διαφθείρει. ὕδατος δὲ τοῖς πλείστοις χρῆσις οὐκ 
ἔστιν ἄνευ πυρός: θερμανθὲν γὰρ ὠφελιμώτερον, 
σ΄ Ἁ ’, \ \ / ε 
οὕτω δὲ βλαβερόν. καὶ τὴν θάλατταν ἡ θερμότης 
ὠφελιμωτέραν ἐποίησεν, ὡς μᾶλλον κατάθερμον" 
~ ¢ / ’ \ > yy 9 ~ ~ ΕῚ \ 
TOV ὑδάτων ἐπεὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλο γε τῶν λοιπῶν οὐδὲν 
διέφερε. ὥστε δυεῖν ἄμεινον 6 ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ παρ- 
ἔχεται χρείαν, τοῦ ἑτέρου μὴ προσδεόμενον. ἔτι 


1 οὐκ added by Kronenberg. 

2 ἐπιχειροίη) ἐπικείροι Bernardakis. 

3 ξυρῶν Stephanus: ξηρῶν. 

4 ἀναισθητότατα Reiske: -orepa. 

5 yap W.C.H.: yap ἡ πρὸς τὰ. 

6 μείζων W.C.H.: μείζω τῶν. Post would keep the text 
here and just above, adding φυτῶν, καρπῶν or the like. 

1 δεῖ] ἔδει Leonicus. 


302 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 957-958 


putrefy, since putrefaction is not a change from dry 
to moist, but rather a corruption of the moisture in 
flesh. Death, then, is nothing but the total disappear- 
ance of heat and so dead men are extremely cold ; 
if you attack them with a razor-blade, you will blunt 
the edge of it through excess of cold. In the living 
creature itself, too, the parts that have the least heat 
are the least sensitive, like bones and hair and the 
parts that are a long way from the heart. And, in 
general, the presence of fire makes a greater differ- 
ence * than that of moisture; for it is not mere 
moisture that produces plants and fruits, but warm 
moisture ; cold water, of course, is either less pro- 
ductive or not productive at all. Yet if by its own 
nature water were fruitful, it would always bear fruit 
by itself ὃ ; but on the contrary it is even harmful. 
10. To begin again: for the use of fire as fire we 
do not need water; on the contrary, it would be in 
our way since it extinguishes and destroys it. But 
in most circumstances it is impossible to use water 
without fire. When water is heated, it is more useful ; 
otherwise it is harmful. And it is heat which has 
made the sea more beneficial, its waters being warmer, 
since it differs from other waters in no other respect. °¢ 
So that of two things, that is better which of itself 
lends us its use without need of the other. Besides, 


2 Or adopting Schultz’s (Hermes, xlvi. 632) emendation : 
“the difference between living and non-living comes from 
the presence of fire’; but the text is hopelessly corrupt. 

ὃ That is, without heat. 

¢ This sentence was transferred here from the following 
chapter by Wegehaupt. 


8 κατάθερμον W.C. H.: καταθέρει and the like. 
9 addo W.C.H.: atro. 
303 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(958) ὕδωρ μὲν μοναχῶς ὠφέλιμον. κατὰ θίξιν λουσα- 
μένοις" ἢ ναψαμένοις ," τὸ δὲ πῦρ διὰ πάσης αἰσθή- 
σεως: καὶ γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἁφῆς καὶ πόρρωθεν ὁρώμενον, 
ὥστε προσεῖναι τοῖς ἄλλοις τῆς χρείας αὐτοῦ καὶ 

B τὸ πολυποίκιλον .ὃ 
11. Τὸ γὰρ λέγειν ὡς ἔστι ποθ᾽ ὁ ἄνθρωπος 
» \ ” 4 29> ὦ , , ε 
ἄνευ πυρὸς ἄτοπον᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὅλως δύναται γενέσθαι o 
» \ > - piesa | , / / \ 
ἄνθρωπος. διαφοραὶ δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἐν γένει καθάπερ καὶ 
>] Μ \ ¢€ \ / \ ~ »” 
ἐν ἄλλοις. καὶ οἱ μὴ προσδεόμενοι δὲ τοῦ ἔξωθεν 
A ~ / 
πυρὸς οὐχ ὡς ἀπροσδεεῖς τοῦτο πάσχουσιν, ἀλλὰ 
περιουσίᾳ καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ἐν αὑτοῖς θερμοῦ: 
τοῦτο ῥητέον καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων, ὅσα μὴ 
πυρὸς δεῖται" ὥστε καὶ κατὰ τοῦθ᾽ ὑπερέχειν τὴν 
τοῦ πυρὸς χρείαν, ὡς εἰκός. τὸ μὲν ὕδωρ οὐδέποτε 
τοιοῦτον, ὥστε μὴ δεῖσθαι τῶν ἐκτός, τὸ δὲ πῦρ 
Ο ὑπ᾽ ἀρετῆς πολλῆς καὶ αὔταρκες. ὡς οὖν στρα- 
τηγὸς ἀμείνων ὃ παρασκευάσας τὴν πόλιν μὴ 
΄' ~ / 7 A 
δεῖσθαι τῶν ἔξωθεν συμμάχων, οὕτω καὶ στοιχεῖον 
τὸ τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπικουρίας" πολλάκις μὴ δεόμενον 
ὑπερέχον. 
/ 5 > > / / Μ \ 
Καίτοι γ᾽ εἰς τοὐναντίον λάβοι τις av, TO χρησι- 
μώτερον εἶναι τοῦτο, ᾧ χρώμεθα μόνοιΐ καὶ μάλιστα 
A 7 > ~ “A / 9 A / 
τὸ βέλτιον ἐκ λογισμοῦ λαβεῖν δυνάμενοι" ἐπεὶ τί 
λόγου χρησιμώτερον ἢ μᾶλλον ἀνθρώποις λυσι- 
, 5 > > / γα το ΓΑ ΡῈ; 
τελέστερον; ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάρεστι τοῖς ἀλόγοις. τί οὖν; 
~ a » ~ ~ 
διὰ τοῦθ᾽ ἧττον ὠφέλιμον τὸ" ἐκ τῆς προνοίας τοῦ 
βελτίονος εὑρεθέν; 


1 λουσαμένοις) γευσαμένοις Wyttenbach. 
2 νιψαμένοις one MS. Only: ἁψαμένοις. 
3 τὸ πολυποίκιλον W.C. H.: τὴν πολυτέλειαν. 
4 ἄτοπον added by Bernardakis. 
5 πυρὸς δεῖται Wyttenbach : προσδεῖται. 


304 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL? 958 


water is solely beneficial to the touch, when you wash 
or bathe in it ; but fire is profitable to all the senses. 
It can, in fact, both be touched and seen from a 
distance, so that in addition to its other uses, there 
is also its variegated character. 

11.¢ For to say that man ever exists without fire 
is absurd, nor can he exist at all without it; but 
there are differences in kind as in other things. As 
for men who have no need of fire from without, they 
have this experience not because they do not need it, 
but because their own heat more than suffices. This 
must be predicated also of other animals which do 
not need fire.? So that in this respect, too, the use 
of fire is probably superior. Water is never in such 
a condition as to need no external support, but fire 
is self-sufficient because of its great excellence. As, 
then, a general is better who manages the affairs of 
his city so that it needs no allies from without, so 
also an element is superior which does not often need 
external assistance. 

Yet, to take the opposite point of view, that is more 
useful which we alone make great use of, since by 
the powers of our reason we are able to choose what 
is better. For what is more useful and more profitable 
to man than reason? But brute beasts do not have 
it. What then? Is what has been discovered by the 
foresight of our better part for this reason less useful ? 


2 The order of the sentences in this chapter, in addition to 
its many other corruptions, has been badly disturbed. 

® This clause was transferred here by the editor from 
958 c infra at the end of the paragraph. 

8 ἐπικουρίας W.C.H.: ἐπικουρίας παρέχον (dittography with 
ὑπερέχον below). 

7 μόνοι an anonymous corrector: μόνῳ (μόνοι of Reiske). 

8 τὸ added by W.C. H. 

305 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


᾿Επεὶ δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο τοῦ λόγου γεγόναμεν, 
τί wt TO βίῳ λυσιτελέστερον; τέχνας δὲ πάσας 
καὶ ἀνεῦρε τὸ πῦρ καὶ σῴζει: διὸ καὶ τὸν “Hdavotov 
ἀρχηγὸν αὐτῶν ποιοῦσι. καὶ μὴν ὀλίγου χρόνου 
καὶ βίου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δεδομένου, ὁ μὲν ᾿Αρίστων 
φησὶν ὅτι 6 ὕπνος οἷον τελώνης τὸ ἥμισυ ἀφαιρεῖ 
τούτου: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἂν εἴποιμ᾽ ὅτι σκότος" ἐγρηγορέναι" 
ἂν εἴη" διὰ νυκτός, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἦν" ὄφελος τῆς ἐγρη- 
γόρσεως, εἰ μὴ τὸ πῦρ τὰ τῆς ἡμέρας Ἰὰς παρεῖχεν 
ἀγαθά, καὶ τὴν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐξήρει διαφοράν. 
εἰ τοίνυν τοῦ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἀνθρώποις λυσιτελέστερον 
καὶ τοῦτο πολλαπλασιάζει τὸ πῦρ, πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴη 
πάντων ὠφελιμώτατον; 

18. Καὶ μήν, οὗ πλεῖστον" ἑκάστη" τῶν αἰσθή- 
σεων μετείληφεν, οὐκ ἂν εἴη λυσιτελέστατον; οὐχ 
ὁρᾷς οὖν, ὡς τῇ μὲν ὑγρᾷ φύσει οὐδεμία τῶν 
αἰσθήσεων κατ᾽ αὐτὴν προσχρῆται χωρὶς πνεύματος 
ἢ πυρὸς ἐγκεκραμένου, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἅπασα μὲν 
αἴσθησις, οἷον τὸ ζωτικὸν ἐνεργαζομένου, μετεί- 
ληφεν, ἐξαιρέτως δ᾽ ἡ ὄψις, ἥτις ὀξυτάτη τῶν διὰ 
σώματός ἐστιν αἰσθήσεων, πυρὸς ἔξαμμα οὖσα καὶ 
ὅτι θεῶν πίστιν παρέσχηκεν; ἔτι τε, ἧ Πλάτων 
φησί, δυνάμεθα κατασχηματίζειν πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἐν 
οὐρανῷ κινήσεις τὴν ψυχὴν διὰ τῆς ὄψεως. 

1 ἐγρηγορέναι ANONYMOUS : ἐγρήγορεν. 
2. ἂν εἴη Post: ἀεὶ. 3 ἦν added by Adler. 
4 πλεῖστον Bernardakis : πλείστου. 
5 ἑκάστη Emperius: κρᾶσις τῆς. 


α Von Arnim, S.V.F. i, p. 90, frag. 403; ef. Aristotle, 
Nicomachean Ethics, i. 13. 12 (1102 b 7). 

®’ A very corrupt passage. Adler’s reconstruction (Wien. 
Stud. xxxi. 308), with additions by Post, has been followed. 

¢ Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 250 Ὁ ; ef. Mor. 654 D-£, 681 E. 


306 


IS FIRE OR WATER MORE USEFUL ? 958 


12. And since we have arrived at this point in our 
argument : What is more profitable to life than Art ? 
And it was fire that discovered and still preserves all 
the arts. That is why they make Hephaestus the 
first of artificers. Man has been granted but a little 
time to live and, as Ariston % says, sleep, like a tax- 
collector, takes away half of that. But I would rather 
say that it is a question of darkness; for although 
a man might stay awake all night, yet no good would 
come of his wakefulness if fire did not give him the 
benefits of day and remove the difference between 
day and night.’ If, then, there is nothing more 
advantageous to man than life and life is many times 
increased by fire, how should fire not be the most 
useful of all things ? 

13. And, to be sure, will not that be the most 
advantageous of which each of the senses has the 
greatest proportion? Do you not perceive, then, 
that there is no one of the senses which uses moisture 
by itself without an admixture of air or fire ; and that 
every sense partakes of fire inasmuch as it supplies 
the vital energy; and especially that sight, the 
keenest of the physical senses,° is an ignited mass 
of fire @ and is that which has made us ee ein the 
gods? And further, through sight, as Plato’ says, 
we are able to conform our souls to the movements 
of the celestial bodies. 


¢ Cf. von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 196, 199; but Post 
believes the words may mean “ a chain of fire’ linking the 
eye with its object. 

¢ It is the visible heavens and their fire that make us 
believe by ‘‘ declaring the glory ”’ of the celestial gods. See 
A.S. Pease, “ Caeli Enarrant,” Harvard Theological Review, 
xxxiv (1941), pp. 163-200. 

7 Timaeus, 47 a-B. 

307 






re. 


pa sue oe κε 





= a ey 


rer 


lei φῇ Hoty “i wane 
7 7 by ΤΠ 7 ott ‘of Bo Gi 


᾿. ΤῺ - 











£5 


ie ὁ sivas ‘Mie tits Bia isl 
. j it : 5 Areas Fit [9 ahi " ἀρ Nise? min ᾿ς opth 





᾿ “ 
a Ἶ cc ΝΥ 
᾿ ie πὸ ὁ σὴ ify Hite: ἢ 
δ Al” ἄν. δε] "Τὶ 
by at 3 ΓΝ « P 
“ὦ τ f 4 
F oe is 
Ra AOS. af we ce 
ae ει... a ΤΣ ri 
eather blinevy ἢ ΤΩΣ εἰ 
᾿ ᾿ 
" να 7 « { 
‘ pases. ΠῚ} 4 i * Baty 
oh 
᾿ Ὶ » | Ἂ, φ r , 
vidi γί. . 


ἀν  υαθΠἢ 
7 beta? 
- 4! ε ; » 
ct efi tha : Ι ris 
‘ Ὗ ᾿ cx 
UT Visas oi feet fei 
εἴ a A δε * 
, a ͵ , st ᾿ | 
i 
ri 
POT ἴ 
* ib b « he 
if δον “ὦ t τ 
s Jit : 4 ΜΠ 
re “Ὁ. ie = 
᾽ ye?) Ι ᾿Ξ 
Ley . {1} 
ὦ Mga ΣΙ 
. 
‘ 
, ῃ 1 = 
yi? . > ἢ 
A . 
‘ Bir 
; 4 
pad Ϊ i ᾿ ᾿ 
"᾿ A - 
| oye S0 ee er 
Eas ᾿ἈΠ99155 
: ‘ leek Tog ¢ Ad. Ῥ ¥ 
' Hea ‘ ἱ 
᾿ ᾿ ΝΜ 
αἱ πὶ ; wna A 
ἷ 
ὶ - : 
' ' ΓῚ 
7) < ᾿ 
ν' , τι 
4 wee eval . 
ΠῸ 
᾿ , 


Wie THER  CANDYVOR SEA 
AN TMA SA RESACEEVERER 
(DE SOLLERTIA ANIMALIUM) 


: ἮὟ 5 ᾿ ‘he ee ‘ 


- 7 nal 7 
5. “αὶ 
tr ig 
4 ΕΣ 
\ e 
‘ 





ΑΗ §0 GYAd Sant 
AATAVATO AAA BIA 
(MUTIAMIVA AIT 02 | 


INTRODUCTION 


Tuere can be little doubt that Plutarch composed 
this pleasant work from commentariu (ὑπομνήμ «ταὶ 
derived not merely from Aristotle (mentioned specifi- 
cally in 965 p and quoted often), but also from various 
other compendia, the remains of which are to be 
seen in Aelian’s and Pliny’s natural histories and 
elsewhere.” In fact, if one reads Plutarch and Aelian 
and Pliny side by side, one may acquire the impres- 
sion that they had before them substantially the 
same sources, and that these were numerous. Where- 


@ On the sources see Ziegler’s article ‘‘ Plutarchos”’ in 
Pauly-Wissowa, col. 738, and, of the authorities he cites, 
particularly Wellmann’s papers in Hermes, xxvi, xxvii, and 
li, and Max Schuster, Untersuchungen zu Plutarchs De 
Sollertia Animalium (Diss. Munich, 1917). There is also 
an amusing work of Philo, surviving only in an Armenian 
version, which is most conveniently accessible in Aucher’s 
Latin translation in vol. 8 of the Bibliotheca Sacra edition 
(Schwickert, Leipzig, 1830): De Ratione quam habere etiam 
Bruta Animalia dicebat Alexander. In the first part of this 
work Alexander presents the arguments for animal intelli- 
gence, which Philo himself attempts to refute in a somewhat 
summary fashion at the end. The occasional parallels with 
Plutarch will be cited as Philo, with Aucher’s section and 
page numbers. Antigonus of Carystus, Historia Mirabiliwm, 
will be cited from O. Keller’s edition of the Naturalium 
Rerum Scriptores Graeci (Teubner, 1877) and Aelian’s De 
Natura Animalium from ἢ. Hercher’s Teubner (not Didot) 
edition. 


311 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


as Pliny and Aelian appear to adopt nearly every- 
thing their authorities may have offered (for they 
were writing factual commentaries), Plutarch, as 
always, selects. It is possible, in some cases, that 
Plutarch’s mss. (which are not good and also contain 
lacunae) may have been interpolated from Aelian’s ; 
and the reverse is likewise possible. This is a very 
difficult matter, but the hope may be entertained 
that some main sources of Plutarch and Aelian, if not 
of Pliny, and the as yet unassessed evidence of Philo, 
may eventually be disentangled for substantial sec- 
tions, though this is not the place to attempt such a 
feat. 

The title is not well chosen, since the victory is 
awarded to neither side. The real point of the dia- 
logue seems to be, in its second as well as its first 
part, that all animals of whatever provenance are 
intelligent.¢ The occasionally bantering tone may 
serve to indicate that we have before us something 
of a school exercise from Plutarch’s own academy, 
with perhaps the first draft of the second part com- 
posed by pupils.” Note the carefully established 
details : the contest will take place at a fixed time 
(960 Β. 963 B) before their fellow-pupils and a specially 
appointed judge (965 c-r). More or less elaborate 
preparation has been made by the contestants (960 B, 
975 p).° Because of the occasion the school has been 
granted a holiday. 


@ Schuster thinks, rather, that Plutarch’s chief aim is to 
make clear a moral and juridical relationship between man 
and beasts. 

» See Schuster, pp. 57 ff. Aristotimus and Phaedimus 
were doubtless actual pupils of Plutarch. 

¢ Plutarch lays special emphasis on preparation: Mor. 
80 pv, 652 B. 


312 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS 


In the first part (chapters 1-8), the author demon- 
strates through the authoritarian voice of his own 
father that the Stoics, in so far as they affirm the 
irrationality of animals, contradict their own tenets. 
The second part proves that animals of all kinds are 
rational (chapters 9-36) ; the last small section, while 
refusing to award first honours in the debate, appears 
to contain Plutarch’s exhortation to his pupils to 
continue the fight against the Stoics. For an excel- 
lent summary with sympathetic comments see E. R. 
Dodds, Greece and Rome, ii (1932/3), pp. 104-105. 

D’ Agostino % and others have shown that there is 
little originality in Plutarch’s animal psychology, while 
not denying our author considerable vivacity in 
presentation. While it is true that whole sections, like 
Q76 a-p, are drawn from the identical source that 
Aelian (De Natura Animalium, viii. 4-6) used, yet one 
has only to compare the use these authors have made 
of precisely the same material to recognize the great 
superiority of Plutarch. The principal sources have 
been disputed ὃ: Chrysippus, Theophrastus, Hag- 
non, Alexander of Myndus,’ Juba, Xenocrates have 
all been suggested, but there can be little doubt (as 


@ V.D’ Agostino, Archivo Italiano di Psicologia, xi (1933), 
pp. 21 ff., a useful summarizing article. 

> Hirzel, Der Dialog, ii, Ὁ. 179, n. 1. All of Hirzel’s dis- 
cussion is worth reading, though there are occasional slips, 
as when he affirms (p. 173, n. 2) that the story in 969 & f. 
goes back to Plutarch’s own experience. This is quite unlikely 
in view of Aelian’s version of the same story ; nor has Aelian 
drawn from Plutarch as some, including Wyttenbach, have 
thought. 

¢ For the difficulty and danger involved in identifying the 
sources exactly see the lists of authorities furnished by Pliny 
in his first book. Alexander of Myndus, for example, does 
not appear at all as a source for books 8-11. 


313 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


with De Tranquillitate* and many other works) that 
a considerable variety of sources has been utilized. 
Now that Schlapfer ὃ has demonstrated that Plutarch 
had himself read and meditated upon great sections 
of classical poetry, critics may perhaps be more 
willing to allow our author first-hand familiarity with 
a wider range of prose, and works of reference as 
well. 

It is by no means impossible that the work is in- 
complete in our mss.; there are, at least, several 
demonstrable lacunae and it is possible that it was 
considerably longer and may even have justified its 
title when it left Plutarch’s hands. 

As for the date of the dialogue, the terminus post 
quem is A.D. 70 (not 79, as it cannot be certainly 
inferred from 974 a that Vespasian was then dead) ; 
it is probably a work of Plutarch’s youth, preceding 
in any case the Lives and the Symposiacs. It may 
well date from Plutarch’s anti-Stoic period which 
produced the De Facie, the De Communibus Notitis, 
and the other anti-Chrysippean polemics. It has 
much in common with the Gryllus and the fragments 
of De Esu Carnium and some correspondence with 
the Amatorius.© It may, in fact, have been written 
during nearly the same period as that in which the 
elder Pliny (whose preface is dated a.p. 77) was 
compiling his own Natural History. 


2 See the introduction in the Loeb edition. 

> Plutarch und die klassischen Dichter, Ziirich, 1950, 
especially pp. 59-60. 

¢ But allowance must be made for exaggerated and 
partially false premises in Hartman, De Plutarcho, p. 567. A 
modified chronological scheme of Plutarch’s writings has 
lately been proposed by T. Sinko (Polish Acad. Cracow, 
1947), but it is too complicated to be examined here. 


314 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS 


The citations in D’Arcy Thompson’s Oxford trans- 
lation of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium® are somewhat 
inaccurate and inconsistent, being, as he says, “* com- 
piled at various times and at long intervals during 
many years.’’ Nevertheless the work is of great 
value and it may be hoped that the notes in this 
edition that rely on it (and these are many) have 
been adequately sifted. Also to be constantly and 
gratefully consulted are Thompson's 4 Glossary of 
Greek Fishes (Oxford, 1947) and A Glossary of Greek 
Birds (2nd edition, Oxford, 1936). There will be 
many references to Thompson's Aristotle ; but if the 
creature in question is a bird or a fish, it is to be 
understood that supplementary and often corrective 
material is to be found in the Glossaries. There is, 
further, a tribute of admiration due to A. W. Mair’s 
L.C.L. edition of Oppian, with its exhaustive notes.? 
Rackham (L.C.L. Pliny, vol. III, books viii-xi) is very 
interesting on the text, but has almost completely 
denied himself the privilege of citing parallel passages. 

The debunking of many of Plutarch’s stories, if 
such a task is necessary, has been pleasantly done 
in the leisurely course of Bergen Evans’ The Natural 
History of Nonsense (New York, 1946). It should be 
added, however, that modern scientific speculation 
is approaching somewhat closer to one of Plutarch’s 
main tenets, if one may judge from such a work as 
W. C. Allee’s Coéperation Among Animals (New York, 
1951: a revision of his earlier The Social Life of 


α The Loeb edition of A. L. Peck is still awaited at this 
date of writing. It should be noted that quotations from 
the ninth book, in particular, are liable to peculiar suspicion 
and may not proceed from the great naturalist himself. 

ὃ Even the extremely hostile review in Phil. Woch. 11 (1951), 
pp. 1569 ff., exempts the notes from censure. 


315 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Animals) ; and on the thesis of animal intelligence 
see Evans himself, p. 173, and the authorities cited 
there, note 1. 

Both the translation and the notes of this and the 
following essays have benefited immeasurably from 
an exhaustive criticism generously given them by 
Professor Alfred C. Andrews of the University of 
Miami, Florida. He has in fact supplied a number of 
valuable notes and also the Appendix, a classified 
zoological index. It must be understood, however, 
that any errors remaining are to be attributed solely 
to the editor.* 

The dialogue is no. 147 in the catalogue of Lam- 
prias. According to this document Plutarch wrote 
another work (no. 135) on the same subject: Do 
Beasts Possess Reason? But no. 127, Περὶ ζῴων 
ἀλόγων ποιητικός. is probably the same as our 
Gryllus, the following dialogue in this edition. 


ABBREVIATIONS USED IN CITING MopEerRN AUTHORS 


Brands—J. P. J. M. Brands, Grieksche Diernamen, 
Purmerend, 1935. 

Cotte=J. Cotte, Porssons et animaux aquatiques au 
temps de Pline, Paris, 1945. 

Keller=Otto Keller, Die antike Tierwelt, Leipzig, 
1909-1913. 

Mair=A. W. Mair, Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus, 
ΕΟ es 


@ Since our text was formed and our translation and notes 
composed a year or more before the appearance of the new 
Teubner edition, almost no new references have been added 
which are not purely textual. The curious reader is referred 
to Hubert’s wealth of illustration to supplement our contribu- 
tions. 


316 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS 


Saint-Denis=E. de Saint-Denis, Le Vocabulaire des 
animaux marins en latin classique, Paris, 1947. 
Schmid=Georg Schmid, “ Die Fische in Ovids 
Halieuticon,” Philologus, Supplementband xi 

(1907-1910), pp. 253-350. 

Thompson, Aristotle=D’Arcy W. Thompson, The 
Works of Aristotle, vol. IV, Historia animalium, 
Oxford, 1910. 

Thompson, Birds=D’Arcy W. Thompson, 4 Glossary 
of Greek Birds, rev. ed., Oxford, 1936. 

Thompson, Fishes= D’Arcy W. Thompson, 4 Glossary 
of Greek Fishes, Oxford, 1947. 


317 


(959) 


ΠΟΤΕΡΑ TON ZOION ®PONIMOTEPA, 
TA ΧΕΡΣΑΙᾺ Ἢ TA ENYAPA 


1. arroporaos. Tov Τυρταῖον 6 Λεωνίδας. ἐρω- 


Β τηθεὶς ποῖόν τινα νομίζοι, δὴ ἀγαθὸν ποιητὴν ᾿ ᾿ ἔφη 


νέων ψυχὰς κακκονῆν Ἔν ὡς TOLS νέοις διὰ τῶν 
ἐπῶν ὁρμὴν ἐμποιοῦντα μετὰ θυμοῦ καὶ φιλοτιμίας 
ἐν ταῖς μάχαις ἀφειδοῦσιν" αὑτῶν. δέδια δή, ὦ 
φίλοι, μὴ καὶ τὸ τῆς κυνηγεσίας ἐγκώμιον ΕΝ 
ἀνεγνωσμένον ἐπάρῃ τοῦ μετρίου πέρα τοὺς φιλο- 
θήρους ἡμῖν νεανίσκους, ὥστε τἄλλα πάρεργα καὶ 
τὸ μηδὲν ἡγεῖσθαι, πρὸς τοῦτο παντάπασι ῥυέντας" 
ὅπου δοκῶ μοι καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκ νέας αὖθις ἀρχῆς παρ᾽ 


1 κακκονῆν van Herwerden after Meziriacus: κακύνειν or 
καλλύνειν. 5. ἀφειδοῦσιν van Herwerden: ἀφειδοῦσαν. 





α Plutarch’s father; on controversial points connected 
with this identification see Ziegler in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. 
“*Plutarchos,”’ 642 ff. 

» A friend of the household who appears in several of the 
Symposiacs and in the Amatorius also ; he is not improbably 
the L. Mestrius Soclarus of /nser. Gr. ix. 1. 61. 

¢ A speaker also in De Defectu Oraculorum (cf. Mor. 
412 ©). Of the other speakers in this dialogue, nothing 
definite is known except what may be inferred from the 
present work. 

4 Cf. Mor. 235 ¥, where it is an anonymous saying; but 
the Life of Cleomenes, ii (xxiii=805 Ὁ) also attributes it to 
Leonidas. 

¢ The authorship of this work has been endlessly disputed, 


318 


WHETHER LAND OR SEA ANIMALS 
ARE CLEVERER 


(The speakers in the dialogue are Autobulus,¢ Soclarus, Ὁ 
Optatus, Aristotimus, Phaedimus, and Heracleon. °) 
1. auTospuLus. When Leonidas was asked what sort 
of a person he considered Tyrtaeus to be, he replied, 
“A good poet to whet the souls of young men,” ὦ on 
the ground that by means of verses the poet inspired 
in young men keenness, accompanied by ardour and 
ambition whereby they sacrificed themselves freely 
in battle. And I am very much afraid, my friends, 
that the Pracse of Hunting ὁ which was read aloud to 
us yesterday may so immoderately inflame our young 
men who like the sport that they will come to con- 
sider all other occupations as of minor, or of no, 
importance and concentrate on this.’ As a matter 
of fact, I myself caught the old fever all over again 


but present opinion (pace Sinko, Hos, xv, pp. 113 ff. and 
Hubert, Woch. f. klass. Phil. xxviii, pp. 371 ff.) holds that 
itis Plutarch himself who wrote it (Schuster, op. cit. pp. 8 ff.). 
Bernardakis (vii, pp. 142-143) included this passage (959 B-p) 
as a fragment of the lost work. 

f ** There cannot be two passions more nearly resembling 
each other than hunting and philosophy ” (Huxley, Hume, 
Ῥ. 139), and see Shorey’s note on Plato, Republic, 432 8 
(ΟῚ: ¢f., however,- Rep. 535 Ὁ. 549--a. - See-also 
Isocrates, Areopagiticus, 43 f.; Xenophon, Cynegetica, i. 
18; xii. 1. ff.; Cyr. viii. 1. 34-36; Pollux, preface to book 
v; the proems of Grattius, Nemesianus, Arrian, etc. 


319 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(959) ἡλικίαν ἐμπαθέστερος γεγονέναι καὶ ποθεῖν, ὥσπερ 
ἡ Εὐριπίδου Φαίδρα, “ κυσὶ OwiEar βαλιαῖς ἐλά- 
C φοις ἐγχριμπτόμενος ἐς οὕτως ἐθιγέ μου πυκνὰ καὶ 
πιθανὰ τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων ἐ ἐπάγων ὁ λόγος. 
ΣΩΚΛΑΡΟΣ. ᾿Αληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Αὐτόβουλε' καὶ 
γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἔδοξέ μοι τὸ ῥητορικὸν ἐγεῖραι διὰ 
χρόνου, χαριζόμενος καὶ συνεαρίζων τοῖς μειρα- 
κίοις" μάλιστα δ᾽ ἥσθην τοὺς μονομάχους αὐτοῦ 
παραθέντος, ὡς οὐχ ἥκιστα τὴν θηρευτικὴν ἄξιον 
ἐπαινεῖν, ὅτι τοῦ πεφυκότος ἐν ἡμῖν ἢ μεμαθηκότος 
/ / > ~ \ > 7 \ rd 
χαίρειν μάχαις ἀνδρῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους διὰ σιδήρου 
τὸ πολὺ δεῦρο τρέψασα καθαρὰν παρέχει θέαν, ἅμα 
τέχνης καὶ τόλμης νοῦν ἐχούσης πρὸς ἀνόητον 
ἰσχὺν καὶ βίαν ἀντιταττομένης καὶ ἐπαινούσης τὸ 
Εὐριπίδειον 


ἢ βραχύ τοι σθένος ἀνέρος. ἀλλὰ 
D ποικιλίᾳ πραπίδων 

δεινὰ μὲν! φῦλα πόντου 

χθονίων τ᾽ ἀερίων τε 

δάμναται παιδεύματα. 


\ A 

2. art. Kai μὴν ἐκεῖθεν, ὦ φίλε Σώκλαρε, φα- 
σὶν ἥκειν ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώπους τὴν ἀπάθειαν καὶ τὴν 
ἀγριότητα γευσαμένην φόνου καὶ προεθισθεῖσαν € ἐν 
ταῖς ἄγραις καὶ τοῖς κυνηγεσίοις αἷμα καὶ τραύ- 
ματα ζῴων μὴ δυσχεραίνειν ἀλλὰ χαίρειν σφαττο- 

/ Αἷς 78 s 2; f pet > > / 
μένοις καὶ ἀποθνήσκουσιν. εἶθ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐν ᾿Αθήναις 


1 δεινὰ μὲν Mor. 98 ©, from which several other corrections 
have been introduced : δαμᾷ. 


2 Cf. Hippolytus, 218 f. It follows from the fuller quota- 
tion in Mor. 52 c that Plutarch’s text of Euripides inverted 
the order of these lines as given in our mss, of the tragedian. 


320 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 959 


in spite of my years and longed, like Euripides’ 4 


Phaedra, 
To halloo the hounds and chase the dappled deer ; 


so moved was I by the discourse as it brought its 
solid and convincing arguments to bear. 

soctarus. Exactly so, Autobulus. That reader 
yesterday seems to have roused his rhetoric from its 
long disuse ὃ to gratify the young men and share 
their vernal mood.° I was particularly pleased with his 
introduction of gladiators and his argument that it is 
as good a reason as any to applaud hunting that after 
diverting to itself most of our natural or acquired 
pleasure in armed combats between human beings 
it affords an innocent spectacle of skill and intelligent 
courage pitted against witless force and violence. It 
agrees with that passage of Euripides ὦ: 


Slight is the strength of men ; 
But through his mind’s resource 
He subdues the dread 

Tribes of the deep and races 
Bred on earth and in the air. 


2. auToBuLUS. Yet that is the very source, my 
dear Soclarus, from which they say insensibility 
spread among men and the sort of savagery that 
learned the taste of slaughter on its hunting trips ὁ 
and has grown accustomed to feel no repugnance for 
the wounds and gore of beasts, but to take pleasure 
in their violent death. The next step is like what 

ὃ Presumably an autobiographical detail. 

¢ The word is found only here, but may well be right if 
Plutarch is in a poetical, as well as a playful, humour. 

4 Frag. 27 from the Aeolus (so Stobaeus): Nauck, Trag. 


Graec. Frag. pp. 370 f.; cf. Mor. 98 ©. The text is some- 
what confused. ὁ Cf. Porphyry, De Abstinentia, iii. 20. 


VOL. XII M 321 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


~ / ¢ ‘ ~ / Zz > 
(959) πρῶτός τις ὑπὸ τῶν τριάκοντα συκοφάντης ἀπο- 
θανὼν ἐπιτήδειος ἐλέχθη, καὶ δεύτερος ὁμοίως καὶ 
τρίτος: ἐκ τούτου δὲ κατὰ μικρὸν ἤδη προϊόντες 
ἥπτοντο τῶν ἐπιεικῶν καὶ τέλος οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρίστων" 
EK ἀπέσχοντο πολιτῶν: οὕτως ὁ πρῶτος ἄρκτον ἀν- 
ελὼν 7 ἢ λύκον εὐδοκίμησεν" 7 βοῦς t ἴσως" ἢ σῦς at- 
τίαν ἔσχε προκειμένων ἱερῶν γευσάμενος ἐπιτήδειος 
ἀποθανεῖν: ἔλαφοι δὲ τοὐντεῦθεν ἤδη καὶ λαγωοὶ 
καὶ δορκάδες ἐσθιόμενοι προβάτων καὶ κυνῶν 
ἐνιαχοῦ καὶ ἵππων κρέα προυξένησαν: “τιθασὸν 
~ >] 

δὲ χῆνα Kal περιστεράν, ἐφέστιον οἰκέτιν,᾽ TO 

/ 2 » e ~ \ ” ~ 
Σοφοκλέους, οὐχ ws γαλαῖ καὶ αἴλουροι τροφῆς 

LA \ / > > 5,..1Ὁ « ~ a ~ 

ἕνεκα διὰ λιμόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡδονῇ Kat ὄψῳ διασπῶν- 
τες καὶ κατακόπτοντες ὅσον ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει φονικὸν 

καὶ θηριῶδες ἔρρωσαν καὶ πρὸς οἶκτον ἀκαμπὲς" 
ἀπειργάσαντο, τοῦ δ᾽ ἡμέρου τὸ πλεῖστον ἀπήμ- 

F βλυναν: ὥσπερ αὖ πάλιν οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ τὴν εἰς" 

7 
τὰ θηρία πραότητα μελέτην ἐποιήσαντο πρὸς τὸ 
1 ἢ βοῦς tows W. C. H.: καὶ βοῦς τις. 
2 70 Σοφοκλέους Emperius : τε Σοφοκλῆς. 


* ἀκαμπὲς] ἀπαθὲς Porphyry. 
4 cis W. C. H.: ampos. 


@ See 998 B infra and cf. Miiller, Hist. Graec. Frag. i, 
p. 269, Ephorus, frag. 125; it is not, however, accepted as 
from Ephorus by Jacoby (cf. Sallust, Catiline, li. 28-31). 
We must remember, during the following discussion, that 
zoology used to be the handmaid of ethics. 

» Cf. 993 B infra. The Age of Cronus, when beasts 
were unharmed, is admirably described in Plato, Politicus, 
270 c fff. 

¢ “That is, they put grain on the altar to make the 
animal volunteer, as it were, to die ’’ (Post); and the con- 
sent of the victim was secured by pouring water on it to 
make it shake its head. See Mor. 729 ¥F and the article 
Ὁ Opfer ”’ in RA, xviii. 612. 

322 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 959 


happened at Athens?%: the first man put to death 
by the Thirty was a certain informer who was said to 
deserve it, and so was the second and the third ; but 
after that they went on, step by step, until they were 
laying hands on honest men and eventually did not 
spare even the best of the citizens. Just so the first 
man ὃ to kill a bear or a wolf won praise ; and perhaps 
some cow or pig was condemned as suitable to slay 
because it had tasted the sacred meal placed before 
it.© So from that point, as they now went on to eat 
the flesh of deer and hare and antelope, men were 
introduced to the consumption of sheep and, in some 
places, of dogs and horses. 


The tame goose and the dove upon the hearth, 


as Sophocles? says, were dismembered and carved 
for food—not that hunger compelled men as it does 
weasels and cats, but for pleasure and as an appetizer.’ 
Thus the brute 7 and the natural lust to kill in man 
were fortified and rendered inflexible to pity, while 
gentleness was, for the most part, deadened. It was 
in this way, on the contrary, that the Pythagoreans,? 
to inculcate humanity and compassion, made a 


4 Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 314, frag. 782 ; Pearson, 
vol. III, p. 68, frag. 866. 

ε Of. 991 pv, 993 B, 995 c infra. ΟΥ̓“ as meat to go with 
their bread ’’?; for fowl is not ordinarily an appetizer. 

7 From this point to the end of chapter 5 (963 ¥F) the 
greater part of the text is excerpted by Porphyry, De Absti- 
nentia, iii. 20-24 (pp. 211-220, ed. Nauck). This indirect 
transmission, with its not infrequent changes, omissions, and 
variations, gives valuable evidence; but obvious errors on 
either side have not been mentioned here. 

9 Of. 964 τ, 993 a infra, and Mor. 86 v, 729 ©. ‘‘ The 
practice is correctly stated ; the alleged motive is not. The 
taboo on meat stemmed from belief in the transmigration of 
souls ’’ (Andrews). 


323 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ / 
(959) φιλάνθρωπον καὶ φιλοίκτιρμον: ἡ yap συνήθεια 
960 δεινὴ τοῖς κατὰ μικρὸν ἐνοικειουμένοις πάθεσι 
/ A 
πόρρω προαγαγεῖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 
δ 
᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ οἷδ᾽ ὅπως ἐν λόγοις γεγονότες λελή- 
θαμεν οὔτε τῶν χθὲς ἡμῖν γεγονότων οὔτε τῶν 
\ 
Taya δὴ γενησομένων σήμερον ἀπηρτημένοις. ἀπο- 
φηνάμενοι' γὰρ ἐχθές, ὡς οἶσθα, μετέχειν ἁμωσ- 
γέπως πάντα τὰ ζῷα διανοίας καὶ λογισμοῦ 
παρέσχομεν οὐκ ἄμουσον οὐδ᾽ ἄχαριν τοῖς θηρα- 
τικοῖς νεανίσκοις περὶ συνέσεως θηρίων ἐνάλων τε 
\ ~ “ [2] 7 e ” / 
καὶ πεζῶν ἅμιλλαν ἣν σήμερον, ws ἔοικε, βραβεύ- 
aA » « 
σομεν, av γε δὴ ταῖς προκλήσεσιν οἱ περὶ ᾿Αριστό- 
B τιμον καὶ Φαίδιμον ἐμμείνωσιν: ἐκείνων γὰρ ὁ μὲν 
τῆς γῆς ὡς διαφέροντα τῷ φρονεῖν ζῷα γεννώσης 
A / ~ 
ἐπεδίδου τοῖς ἑταίροις συνήγορον ἑαυτόν, ὁ δὲ τῆς 
θαλάττης. 
~ > 7 
saKA. ᾿Βμμενοῦσιν, ὦ Αὐτόβουλε, καὶ ὅσον ov- 
πω πάρεισι: συντασσομένους γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἕωθεν 
Ce? > > >? / \ = i ~ “ a 
ἑώρων. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ βούλει, πρὸ τοῦ ἀγῶνος ὅσα Tots 
ἐχθὲς λόγοις προσήκοντα λεχθῆναι καιρὸν οὐκ 
ἔσχεν ἢ σὺν" οἴνῳ καὶ παρὰ πότον οὐ μετὰ σπουδῆς 
> / \ ε \ > / > / / 
ἐλέχθη πρὸς αὑτοὺς ἀναλάβωμεν. ἐδόκει yap τι 
πραγματικῶς οἷον ἀντηχεῖν ἐκ τῆς Στοᾶς, ὡς τῷ 
θνητῷ τὸ ἀθάνατον ἀντίκειται καὶ τῷ φθαρτῷ τὸ 
ἄφθαρτον καὶ σώματί γε τὸ ἀσώματον: οὕτως ὑπ- 
Ο ἀαρχοντι τῷ" λογικῷ χρῆναι τὸ ἄλογον ἀντικεῖσθαι 
1 ἀπηρτημένοις Reiske: ἀπηρτημένοι. ἀποφηνάμενοι added 
by Bernardakis after Wyttenbach. 
2 ἐμμενοῦσιν W.C. Η. : ἐμμένουσιν. 
3 σὺν] ἐν van Herwerden. 4 τῷ] ye τῷ Porphyry. 


324 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 959-960 


practice of kindness to animals ; for habituation has 
a strange power to lead men onward by a gradual 
familiarization of the feelings. 

Well, we have somehow fallen unawares into a 
discussion not unconnected with what we said yester- 
day nor yet with the argument that is presently to 
take place to-day. Yesterday, as you know, we 
proposed the thesis that all animals partake in one 
way or another of reason and understanding, and 
thereby offered our young hunters a field of competi- 
tion not lacking in either instruction or pleasure : 
the question whether land or sea animals have 
superior intelligence. This argument, it seems, we 
shall to-day adjudicate if Aristotimus and Phaedimus 
stand by their challenges ; for Aristotimus put him- 
self at his comrades’ disposal to advocate the land as 
producer of animals with superior intelligence, while 
the other will be pleader for the sea. 

soctarus. They'll stand by their word, Autobulus ; 
they'll be here any minute now. Early this morning 
I observed them both preparing for the fray. But, 
if you like, before the contest begins, let us review 
the discussion of whatever topics are germane to our 
conversation of yesterday, but were not then dis- 
cussed, either because no occasion offered, or, since 
we were in our cups, were treated too lightly. I 
thought, in fact, that I caught the reverberation of 
a material objection from the Stoa%: just as the 
immortal is opposed to the mortal and the imperish- 
able to the perishable, and, of course, the incorporeal 
to the corporeal ; just so, if there is rationality, the 
irrational must exist as its opposite and counterpart. 


« Cf.von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 49 ff., 172 ff. ; and Pohlenz, 
B.P.W, xxiii (1903), col. 966, on Chrysippus, frag. 182. 


325 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ > / \ A / > ~ 
(960) Kat ἀνθυπάρχειν καὶ μὴ μόνην ἐν τοσαῖσδε συζυ- 
γίαις ἀτελῆ τήνδε λείπεσθαι καὶ πεπηρωμένην. 
8. art. Τίς δέ, ὦ φίλε Σώκλαρε, τοῦτ᾽ ἠξίω- 
»Μ - ~ ~ 
σεν, ὄντος ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι τοῦ λογικοῦ, μὴ εἶναι 
\ Μ \ / > \ Μ > ~ 
τὸ ἄλογον; πολὺ γάρ ἐστι καὶ ἄφθονον ἐν πᾶσι 
ἯΙ ps > 2 \ sav. 4) bess , 
τοῖς ψυχῆς ἀμοιροῦσι καὶ οὐδὲν' ἑτέρας δεόμεθα 
\ \ \ > / > Ἁ ~ >) \ \ 
πρὸς τὸ λογικὸν ἀντιθέσεως, ἀλλὰ πᾶν εὐθὺς τὸ 
~ A 
ἄψυχον ws ἄλογον καὶ ἀνόητον ἀντίκειται τῷ μετὰ 
~ / ” \ / 5 ᾿ 3 - 
ψυχῆς λόγον ἔχοντι καὶ διάνοιαν. εἰ δέ τις ἀξιοῖ 
μὴ κολοβὸν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν ἀλλὰ τὴν ἔμψυχον 
/ ” \ \ \ \ > Μ “ 
φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν λογικὸν τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον, ἕτερος 
D ἀξιώσει τὴν ἔμψυχον φύσιν ἔχειν τὸ μὲν φανταστι- 
κὸν τὸ δ᾽ ἀφαντασίωτον, καὶ τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικὸν τὸ 
3 > / σ ἣ \ > / / \ 
δ᾽ ἀναίσθητον: ἵνα δὴ τὰς ἀντιζύγους ταύτας Kal 
> / “ \ / \ > A 3 /, 
ἀντιθέτους ἕξεις καὶ στερήσεις περὶ ταὐτὸν ἡ φύσις 
- ¢ 
ἔχῃ γένος οἷον ἰσορροπούσας." εἰ δ᾽ ἄτοπος ὁ 
~ ~ Pp) / \ \ > \ \ > > 
ζητῶν τοῦ ἐμψύχου τὸ μὲν αἰσθητικὸν τὸ δ᾽ av- 
> 
αίσθητον εἶναι, Kal TO μὲν φαντασιούμενον TO ὃ 
ἀφαντασίωτον, ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικὸν εὖ- 
\ 4 \ \ / 0.9 4Φ 
θὺς εἶναι καὶ φανταστικὸν πέφυκεν, οὐδ᾽ οὗτος 
ἐπιεικῶς ἀπαιτήσει τὸ μὲν λογικὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐμ- 
/ \ > y \ 5 / / 
ψύχου τὸ δ᾽ ἄλογον, πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διαλεγόμε- 
\ 
vos μηδὲ ἕν οἰομένους αἰσθήσεως μετέχειν ὃ μὴ 
\ / > <3 ~ “Ὁ \ ré \ 
Kal συνέσεως, μηδ᾽ εἶναι ζῷον ᾧ μὴ δόξα τις Kal 
1 οὐδὲν Porphyry : οὐδ᾽ ἔτι. 


* ἰσορροπούσας] ἰσορρόπους Porphyry, who adds ἀλλ᾽ ἄτοπον 
τοῦτό γε. 





α There seems to be a great deal more anti-Stoic polemic 


326 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 960 


This alone, among all these pairings, must not be 
left incomplete and mutilated. 

3. auTosuLus.* But who ever, my dear Soclarus, 
maintained that, while rationality exists in the uni- 
verse, there is nothing irrational? For there is a 
plentiful abundance of the irrational in all things 
that are not endowed with a soul ; we need no other 
sort of counterpart for the rational : everything that 
is soulless, since it has no reason or intelligence, is by 
definition in opposition to that which, together with 
a soul, possesses also reason and understanding. Yet 
suppose someone were to maintain that nature must 
not be left maimed, but that that part of nature 
which is endowed with a soul should have its irrational 
as well as its rational aspect, someone else is bound 
to maintain that nature endowed with a soul must 
have both an imaginative and an unimaginative part, 
and both a sentient part and an insentient. They 
want nature, they say, to have these counteractive 
and contraposed positives and negatives of the 
same kind counterbalanced, as it were. But if it is 
ridiculous to require an antithesis of sentient and 
insentient within the class of living things, or an 
antithesis of imaginative and unimaginative, seeing 
that it is the nature of every creature with a soul 
to be sentient and imaginative from the hour of its 
birth, so he, also, is unreasonable who demands a 
division of the living into a rational and an irrational 
part—and that, too, when he is arguing with men 
who believe that nothing is endowed with sensation 
which does not also partake of intelligence and that 
there is no living thing which does not naturally 


in the following speeches than von Arnim has admitted into 
his compilation. See especially the notes on 961 c ff. infra. 


327 


(960) 


ΗΕ 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


λογισμὸς ὥσπερ αἴσθησις καὶ ὁρμὴ κατὰ φύσιν 
πάρεστιν. ἡ γὰρ φύσις, ἣν ἕνεκά του καὶ πρός τι 
πάντα ποιεῖν ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, οὐκ ἐπὶ ψιλῷ τῷ 
πάσχον TU αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον αἰσθητικὸν ἐποίη- 
> > » \ > / \ > \ ~ 

σεν: ἀλλ᾽ ὄντων μὲν οἰκείων πρὸς αὐτὸ πολλῶν 
ὄντων δ᾽ ἀλλοτρίων, οὐδ᾽ ἀκαρὲς ἦν περιεῖναι μὴ 

/ \ \ / A de / θ 

μαθόντι τὰ μὲν φυλάττεσθαι τοῖς δὲ συμφέρεσθαι. 
τὴν μὲν οὖν γνῶσιν ἀμφοῖν ὁμοίως ἡ αἴσθησις 
~ / ~ 

ἑκάστῳ παρέχει: τὰς δ᾽ ἑπομένας τῇ αἰσθήσει τῶν 
μὲν ὠφελίμων. λήψεις καὶ διώξεις, διακρούσεις δὲ 
καὶ φυγὰς τῶν ὀλεθρίων καὶ λυπηρῶν οὐδεμία 


F μηχανὴ παρεῖναι τοῖς μὴ λογίζεσθαί τι καὶ κρίνειν 


961 


\ / \ / / > > = 
καὶ μνημονεύειν καὶ προσέχειν πεφυκόσιν: ἀλλ᾽ ὧν 
5 / 
av ἀφέλῃς παντάπασι προσδοκίαν μνήμην πρόθεσιν 
παρασκευὴν τὸ ἐλπίζειν τὸ δεδοικέναι τὸ ἐπιθυμεῖν 

\ > / ” > > / ” > \ > a 
τὸ ἀσχάλλειν, οὔτ᾽ ὀμμάτων ὄφελος οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς 
7 \ 
παρόντων οὔτ᾽ ὥτων: αἰσθήσεώς τε πάσης Kal 
/ 
φαντασίας TO χρώμενον οὐκ ἐχούσης ἀπηλλάχθαι 
βέλτιον ἢ πονεῖν καὶ λυπεῖσθαι καὶ ἀλγεῖν, ᾧ δια- 
κρούσεται ταῦτα μὴ παρόντος. 
/ / / ~ ~ / > \ 
Kaito. Στράτωνός ye τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγος ἐστὶν 
5 / ς 9.01.9 > / \ / + 
ἀποδεικνύων ὡς οὐδ᾽ αἰσθάνεσθαι τὸ παράπαν ἄνευ 
τοῦ νοεῖν ὑπάρχει: καὶ γὰρ γράμματα πολλάκις 
ἐπιπορευομένους τῇ ὄψει καὶ λόγοι προσπίπτοντες 
~ ~ ¢ ~ 
τῇ ἀκοῇ διαλανθάνουσιν ἡμᾶς καὶ διαφεύγουσι πρὸς 
“ Ss > ~ 
ἑτέροις TOV νοῦν ἔχοντας" εἶτ᾽ αὖθις ἐπανῆλθε καὶ 
1 


πάσχον τι Reiske: πάσχοντι (πάσχειν καὶ Porphyry). 
2 παρεῖναι added by Porphyry. 





« Aristotle and Theophrastus passim ; ef. also Mor. 646 c, 
698 8. 


328 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 960-961 


possess both opinion and reason, just as it has sensa- 
tion and appetite. For nature, which, they ¢ rightly 
say, does everything with some purpose and to some 
end, did not create the sentient creature merely to 
be sentient when something happens to it. No, for 
there are in the world many things friendly to it, 
many also hostile; and it could not survive for a 
moment if it had not learned to give the one sort a 
wide berth while freely mixing with the other. It 
is, to be sure, sensation that enables each creature 
to recognize both kinds ; but the acts of seizing or 
pursuing that ensue upon the perception of what is 
beneficial, as well as the eluding or fleeing of what is 
destructive or painful, could by no means occur in 
creatures naturally incapable of some sort of reason- 
ing and judging, remembering and attending. Those 
beings, then, which you deprive of all expectation, 
memory, design, or preparation, and of all hopes, 
fears, desires, or griefs—they will have no use for eyes 
or ears either, even though they have them. Indeed, 
it would be better to be rid of all sensation and 
imagination that has nothing to make use of it, 
rather than to know toil and distress and pain while 
not possessing any means of averting them. 

There is, in fact, a work of Strato,? the natural 
philosopher, which proves that it is impossible to 
have sensation at all without some action of the in- 
telligence. Often, it is true, while we are busy 
reading, the letters may fall on our eyes, or words 
may fall on our ears, which escape our attention since 
our minds are intent on other things ; but later the 
mind recovers, shifts its course, and follows up every 


> Frag. 112, ed. Wehrli (Die Schule des Aristoteles, v, 
Ῥ. 34). 
329 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(961) μεταθεῖ καὶ διώκει τῶν προειμένων' ἕκαστον ava- 
λεγόμενος: ἧ καὶ λέλεκται 


νοῦς ὁρῇ καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει, τἄλλα" κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά, 


ὡς τοῦ περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ ὦτα πάθους, ἂν μὴ 
παρῇ τὸ φρονοῦν, αἴσθησιν οὐ ποιοῦντος. διὸ καὶ 

Β Κλεομένης ὁ βασιλεύς, παρὰ πότον εὐδοκιμοῦντος 
ἀκροάματος, ἐρωτηθεὶς εἰ μὴ φαίνεται σπουδαῖον, 
ἐκέλευσεν ἐκείνους σκοπεῖν, αὐτὸς" γὰρ ἐν Iledo- 
ποννήσῳ τὸν νοῦν ἔχειν. ὅθεν ἀνάγκη πᾶσιν, οἷς 
τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι, καὶ τὸ νοεῖν ὑπάρχειν, εἰ τῷ νοεῖν 
αἰσθάνεσθαι πεφύκαμεν. 

"Eotw δὲ μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς 
τὸ αὑτῆς ἔργον: ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν γε τῷ ζῴῳ πρὸς τὸ 
οἰκεῖον καὶ τἀλλότριον ἡ αἴσθησις ἐνεργασαμένη 
διαφορὰν ἀπέλθῃ, τί τὸ μνημονεῦόν ἐστιν ἤδη καὶ 
δεδιὸς τὰ λυποῦντα καὶ ποθοῦν τὰ ὠφέλιμα καί, μὴ 

Ο παρόντων, ὅπως παρέσται μηχανώμενον ἐν αὐτοῖς 
καὶ παρασκευαζόμενον ὁρμητήρια καὶ καταφυγὰς 
καὶ θήρατρα πάλιν αὖ τοῖς ἁλωσομένοις" καὶ ἀπο- 
δράσεις τῶν ἐπιτιθεμένων; καὶ ταυτί ye? κἀκεῖνοι 
λέγοντες ἀποκναίουσιν, ἐν ταῖς εἰσαγωγαῖς ἑκά- 
στοτε τὴν “᾿ πρόθεσιν ὁριζόμενοι “᾿ σημείωσιν 

1 προειμένων Kronenberg : προϊεμένων (προειρημένων Por- 
phyry : : παρειμένων Nauck). 

ἢ τἄλλα Meziriacus : τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα. 

αὐτὸς Porphyry: αὐτὸν. 


τοῖς ἁλοῦσιν Porphyry. 
καὶ ταυτί γε]- καίτοι ye Porphyry. 


σι - ὦ 


* A frequently occurring quotation, attributed to Epi- 
charmus in Mor. 336 B (Kaibel, Com. Graec. Frag. i, Ὁ. 137, 


330 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 961 


detail that had been neglected; and this is the 
meaning of the saying 7: 


Mind has sight and Mind has hearing ; 
Everything else is deaf and blind, 


indicating that the impact on eyes and ears brings 
no perception if the understanding is not present. 
For this reason also King Cleomenes, when a recital 
made at a banquet was applauded and he was asked 
if it did not seem excellent, replied that the others 
must judge, for his mind was in the Peloponnesus. 
So that, if we are so constituted that to have sensation 
we must have understanding, then it must follow 
that all creatures which have sensation can also 
understand. 

But let us grant that sensation needs no help of 
intelligence to perform its own function ; neverthe- 
less, when the perception that has caused an animal 
to distinguish between what is friendly and what 
is hostile is gone, what is it that from this time on 
remembers the distinction, fears the painful, and 
wants the beneficial ? And, if what it wants is not 
there, what is there in animals that devises means of 
acquiring it and providing lairs and hiding-places 
—both traps for prey and places of refuge from 
attackers ? And yet those very authors ὃ rasp our 
ears by repeatedly defining in their Introductions ° 
‘purpose ”’ as “‘ an indication of intent to complete,”’ 
frag. 249; Diels, Frag. der Vorsok. i, Ὁ. 200, frag. 12); see 
also Mor. 98 c and 975 8 infra. The fullest interpretation 
is that of Schottlaender, Hermes, lxii, pp. 437 f.; and see 
also Wehrli’s note, pp. 72 f. 

» The Stoics again: von Arnim, S.V.F. iii, p. 41, Chry- 
sippus, frag. 173 of the Lthica. 


¢ Or “ elementary treatises’: titles used by Chrysippus 
(von Arnim, op. cit. ii, pp. 6 f.; ili, p. 196). 


331 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(961) ἐπιτελειώσεως,᾽᾽ τὴν δ᾽ “ ἐπιβολὴν᾽᾿᾿ “ ὁρμὴν πρὸ 
ὁρμῆς, “᾿ παρασκευὴν ᾿ δὲ “᾿ πρᾶξιν πρὸ πρά- 
}})ἢ ce 7 +) \ ce 
ἕξεως, μνήμην ᾿᾿ δὲ κατάληψιν ἀξιώματος 
παρεληλυθότος, οὗ τὸ παρὸν ἐξ αἰσθήσεως κατε- 
λ 7 θ }) / \ > \ “ \ / > 
ἠφθη.᾽ τούτων yap οὐδὲν 6 τι μὴ λογικόν ἐστι, 
καὶ πάντα τοῖς ζῴοις ὑπάρχει πᾶσιν: ὥσπερ ἀμέλει 
καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς νοήσεις, ἃς ἐναποκειμένας μὲν 
ΜΝ. / 2) ~ / \ cc / ΣΦ 
D “ ἐννοίας ᾿᾿ καλοῦσι, κινουμένας δὲ “᾿ διανοήσεις. 
τὰ δὲ πάθη σύμπαντα κοινῶς “᾿ κρίσεις φαύλας καὶ 
δόξας ᾿ ὁμολογοῦντες εἶναι, θαυμαστὸν ὅτι δὴ 
παρορῶσιν ἐν τοῖς θηρίοις ἔργα καὶ κινήματα 
πολλὰ μὲν θυμῶν πολλὰ δὲ φόβων καὶ ναὶ pat Δία 
φθόνων καὶ ζηλοτυπιῶν: αὐτοὶ δὲ καὶ κύνας ἁμαρ- 
/ \ / » \ ΄ 3 > 
TavovTas καὶ ἵππους κολάζουσιν, οὐ διὰ “κενῆς ἀλλ 
ἐπὶ σωφρονισμῷ, λύπην δι᾿ ἀλγηδόνος ἐμποιοῦντες 
αὐτοῖς, ἣν μετάνοιαν ὀνομάζομεν. 
rf 
“Ηδονῆς δὲ τῇ μὲν" δι’ ὥτων ὄνομα κήλησίς ἐστι 
τῇ δὲ δι’ ὀμμάτων γοητεία" χρῶνται δ᾽ ἑκατέραις" 
>] 
ἐπὶ τὰ θηρία. κηλοῦνται μὲν γὰρ' ἔλαφοι καὶ 
E ἵπποι σύριγξι καὶ αὐλοῖς καὶ τοὺς παγούρους ἐκ 
τῶν χηραμῶν ἀνακαλοῦνται βιαζόμενοι ταῖς φώ- 
τιγξι,, καὶ τὴν θρίσσαν ἀδόντων καὶ κροτούντων 
1 ναὶ μὰ] νὴ Porphyry. 
τῇ μὲν... τῇ δὲ Bernardakis: τῷ μὲν... τῷ δὲ (τῆς μὲν... 
τῆς δὲ Porphyry). 
3 ἑκατέραις Porphyry: ἑκατέροις. 
4 μὲν yap Hirschig : μὲν. 
5 βιαζόμενοι ταῖς φώτιγξι] μελιζόμενοι ταῖς σύριγξι Porphyry. 


« That is, by sensation we apprehend the proposition 
‘““ Socrates is snub-nosed,” by memory the proposition 
“Socrates was snub-nosed.” ‘The literature on this com- 
plicated subject has been collected and analysed in Class. 
Rev. lxvi (1952), pp. 146 ἢ. 


332 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 961 


“ design’ as “‘ an impulse before an impulse,” “ pre- 
paration ᾿ as “ an act before an act,” and “ memory ”’ 
as “‘ an apprehension of a proposition in the past tense 
of which the present tense has been apprehended by 
perception.” * For there is not one of these terms 
that does not belong to logic; and the acts are all 
present in all animals as, of course, are cognitions 
which, while inactive, they call “ notions,’’ but when 
they are once put into action, “ concepts.”” And 
though they admit that emotions one and all are 
“false judgements and seeming truths,” ὃ it is extra- 
ordinary that they obviously fail to note many things 
that animals do and many of their movements that 
show anger or fear or, so help me, envy or jealousy. 
They themselves punish dogs and horses that make 
mistakes, not idly but to discipline them; they are 
creating in them through pain a feeling of sorrow, 
which we call repentance. 

Now pleasure that is received through the ears is 
a means of enchantment, while that which comes 
through the eyes is a kind of magic: they use both 
kinds against animals. For deer and horses © are 
bewitched by pipes and flutes, and crabs ὦ are in- 
voluntarily lured from their holes by lotus pipes @ ; 
it is also reported that shad will rise to the surface 


ὃ Cf.you: Arnim; op. cit. i, pp. 50 f. 5 iin, pp 9? fi see 
also Mor. 449 c. 

¢ Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. xii. 44, 46; Antigonus, 
Hist. Mirab. 29. 

4 Dolphins also are caught by music: Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
MAST: 

¢ As described in Athenaeus, 182 e (cf. 175e) ; cf. Aelian, 
De Natura Animal, vi. 31. “ Better would be * Egyptian 
flutes,’ as the term ἡ lotus’ is somewhat misleading. It is 
probably the wood of the nettle-tree, Celtis australis, that is 
indicated *’ (Andrews). 


333 


(961) 


962 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> / \ ..7 / ¢ > > 4 
ἀναδύεσθαι καὶ προϊέναι λέγουσιν. ὁ δ᾽ ὦτος αὖ 
πάλιν ἁλίσκεται γοητευόμενος, ὀρχουμένων ἐν ὄψει 
μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς ἅμα ῥυθμῷ γλιχόμενος τοὺς ὥμους 
συνδιαστρέφειν." 

Οἱ δὲ περὶ τούτων ἀβελτέρως λέγοντες μήθ᾽ ἥδε- 
σθαι μήτε θυμοῦσθαι μήτε φοβεῖσθαι μήτε παρα- 
σκευάζεσθαι μήτε μνημονεύειν, ἀλλ’ “ ὡσανεὶ 
μνημονεύειν ᾿᾿ τὴν μέλιτταν καὶ “᾿ ὡσανεὶ παρα- 

/ 33 \ / \ ce ¢ \ ~ 
σκευάζεσθαι᾿᾿ τὴν χελιδόνα καὶ “ ὡσανεὶ θυμοῦ- 
}) \ / \ {{ « \ a }) \ 
σθαι τὸν λέοντα καὶ “ ὡσανεὶ φοβεῖσθαι᾿᾿᾿ τὴν 
” > 5 , , a 7 rsa 
ἔλαφον, οὐκ οἶδα τί χρήσονται Tots λέγουσι μήτε 

/ / igh > J > / > ral f § ¢ \ δ ΕΣ] > \ 
βλέπειν μήτ᾽ ἀκούειν ἀλλ᾽ “ ὡσανεὶ βλέπειν ᾿᾿ αὐτὰ 

ee gs «ς \ > / ᾽) \ A > 3» Κα ¢ \ 
Kal “᾿ ὡσανεὶ akovew, μηδὲ φωνεῖν ἀλλ᾽ “ ὡσανεὶ 

A ”) 7, 7 a“ 3 2 OG Ce \ ~ }) ~ 
φωνεῖν,᾽᾿ μηδ᾽ ὅλως ζῆν ἀλλ᾽ “ ὡσανεὶ Civ”: ταῦτα 
γὰρ ἐκείνων οὐ μᾶλλόν ἐστι λεγόμενα παρὰ τὴν 
ἐνάργειαν, ὡς ἐγὼ πείθομαι. 

4. ΣΩκλΛ. Kape τοίνυν, ὦ Αὐτόβουλε, ταῦτά γε 

/ / ~ \ A > / ” 
τίθει πειθόμενον: τῷ δὲ Tots ἀνθρωπίνοις ἤθεσι 
καὶ βίοις καὶ πράξεσι καὶ διαίταις τὰ τῶν ζῴων 

, ” \ > ele: , 
παρατιθέναι ἄλλην τε πολλὴν ἐνορῶν" φλαυρότητα 
καὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς, πρὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος γέγονε, μηδέν᾽ 

1 συνδιαστρέφειν Hubert (ad Mor. 705 a): εὖ διαφέρειν 
(συνδιαφέρειν) Kronenberg). 


2 pyre ea. pyr Hirschig:: μηδὲ. - « pd. 
3 ἐνορῶν Bernardakis from Porphyry: ἐν ὅλω. 





* Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 32; Athenaeus, 328 f, 
on the trichis, which is a kind of thrissa (cf. Athenaeus, 
328 e); and see Mair on Oppian, Hal. i. 244 (L.C.L.). 

» Cf. Mor. 52 5 (where the L.C.L., probably wrongly, 
reads ‘“‘ the ape’’); 705 a; Athenaeus, 390 f; Aelian, 
De Natura Animal. xv. 28; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 68; Aris- 
totle, Historia Animal. viii. 13 (597 B 22 ff.) and the other 


334 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 961-962 


and approach when there is singing and clapping.? 
The horned owl,’ again, can be caught by the magic 
of movement, as he strives to twist his shoulders in 
delighted rhythm to the movements of men dancing 
before him. 

As for those who foolishly affirm that animals do 
not feel pleasure or anger or fear or make prepara- 
tions or remember, but that the bee “as it were’’ © 
remembers and the swallow “ as it were ” prepares her 
nest and the lion “ as it were” grows angry and the 
deer “as it were ᾿᾿ is frightened—I don’t know what 
they will do about those who say that beasts do not 
see or hear, but “ as it were ” hear and see ; that they 
have no cry but “as it were’; nor do they live at all 
but “as it were.” For these last statements (or so I 
believe) are no more contrary to plain evidence than 
those that they have made. 

4. soctarus. Well, Autobulus, you may count me 
also as one who believes your statements; yet on 
comparing the ways of beasts with human customs 
and lives, with human actions and manner of living, 
I find not only many other defects in animals, but 
this especially : they do not explicitly aim at virtue,? 
for which purpose reason itself exists ; nor do they 


references of Hubert at Mor. 705 a and Gulick on Athe- 
naeus, 629 f. Contrast Aelian, De Natura Animal. i. 39, on 
doves. Porphyry omits this sentence. 

¢ A favourite expression of Aristotle’s ; but it is the Stoics 
who are being reproved here (ef. von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, p. 
240, Chrysippus, frag. 887). This seems to be the only 
appearance of the word in Plutarch, unless Pohlenz is right 
in conjecturing it at Mor. 600 τ, or Rasmus at 1054 c in 
other Stoic quotations. 

4 On animals possessing areté see Aelian’s preface to the 
first book of De Natura Animal.; cf. also Mor. 986 τ 
infra; al. 


335 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(962) ) ἐμφανῆ! στοχασμὸν «αὐτῶν μηδὲ προκοπὴν μηδ᾽ 


ὄρεξιν, ἀπορῶ πῶς ἡ φύσις ἔδωκε τὴν ἀρχὴν av- 
τοῖς," ἐπὶ τὸ τέλος ἐξ αν oer μὴ δυναμένοις. 
> \ ~ \ 0.9 > A ? / εν 
ΑΥΤ. ᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις, ὦ 
a a > , ” s a \ 
Σώκλαρε, τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἄτοπον εἶναι δοκεῖ: τὴν 
γοῦν πρὸς τὰ ἔκγονα φιλοστοργίαν ἀρχὴν μὲν ἡμῖν 
κοινωνίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης τιθέμενοι, πολλὴν δὲ 
τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ ἰσχυρὰν ὁρῶντες παροῦσαν, οὔ 
~ ~ ~ ᾽ὔ 
Β φασιν αὐτοῖς οὐδ᾽ ἀξιοῦσι μετεῖναι δικαιοσύνης. 
ἡμιόνοις δὲ τῶν γεννητικῶν μορίων οὐδὲν ἐνδεῖ: 
καὶ γὰρ αἰδοῖα καὶ μήτρας καὶ τὸ χρῆσθαι μεθ᾽ 
ἡδονῆς τούτοις ἔχουσαι πρὸς τὸ τέλος οὐκ ἐξικνοῦν- 
ται τῆς γενέσεως." σκόπει δ᾽ ἄλλως, μὴ καὶ κατα- 
/ rd > \ ὃ \ \ / 
γέλαστόν ἐστι τοὺς Σωκράτας Kat τοὺς Πλάτωνας 
οὐδὲν ἐλαφροτέρᾳ κακίᾳ τοῦ τυχόντος ἀνδραπόδου 
a / iA h es hI aA / ” ᾿ \ 
συνεῖναι φάσκειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως ἄφρονας εἶναι Kal 
ἀκολάστους καὶ ἀδίκους, εἶτα τῶν θηρίων αἰτιᾶσθαι 
τὸ μὴ καθαρὸν" μηδ᾽ ἀπηκριβωμένον πρὸς ἀρετὴν 
ὡς στέρησιν" οὐχὶ φαυλότητα λόγου καὶ ἀσθένειαν, 
καὶ ταῦτα τὴν᾽ κακίαν ὁμολογοῦντας εἶναι λογικήν, 
ἧς πᾶν θηρίον ἀναπέπλησται" καὶ γὰρ δειλίαν πολ- 
λοῖς καὶ ἀκολασίαν ἀδικίαν τε καὶ κακόνοιαν" 
eva > , 9 CRS One A \ \ \ 
ὁρῶμεν ἐνυπάρχουσαν." ὁ δ᾽ ἀξιῶν τὸ μὴ πεφυκὸς 


ὀρθότητα λόγου δέχεσθαι μηδὲ λόγον δέχεσθαι" 


- 


‘é 


1 ἐμφανῆ Porphyry: ἐμφήνη. 
2 αὐτοῖς] τοῖς Porphyry. 
> γενέσεως] γεννήσεως Hartman. 

4 φάσκειν Porphyry: φάσκοντας. 

5 καθαρὸν] καθάρειον Kronenberg. 

8 ws στέρησιν Porphyry: ὥσπερ. 
καὶ ταῦτα τὴν Porphyry: καὶ ταύτην. 
8 κακόνοιαν Porphyry: κακοήθειαν. 

ἐνυπάρχουσαν Meziriacus : ὑπάρχουσαν. 


Ὁ μηδὲ λόγον δέχεσθαι added by Porphyry’s ss. 


7 


9 


336 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 962 


make any progress in virtue or have any bent for it ; 
so that I fail to see how Nature can have given them 
even elementary reason, seeing that they cannot 
achieve its end. 

AUTOBULUs. But neither does this, Soclarus, seem 
absurd to those very opponents of ours; for while 
they postulate that love of one’s offspring % is the 
very foundation of our social life and administration 
of justice, and observe that animals possess such love 
in a very marked degree, yet they assert and hold 
that animals have no part in justice. Now mules ὃ 
are not deficient in organs; they have, in fact, 
genitals and wombs and are able to use them with 
pleasure, yet cannot attain the end of generation. 
Consider another approach: is it not ridiculous to 
keep affirming that men like Socrates and Plato ¢ are 
involved in vice no less vicious than that of any slave 
you please, that they are just as foolish and intemper- 
ate and unjust, and at the same time to stigmatize 
the alloyed and imprecise virtue of animals as absence 
of reason rather than as its imperfection or weakness ? 
And this, though they acknowledge that vice is 
a fault of reason and that all animals are infected 
with vice: many, in fact, we observe to be guilty of 
cowardice and intemperance, injustice and malice. 
He, then, who holds that what is not fitted by na- 
ture to receive the perfection of reason does not even 

4 See Mor. 495 c and the whole fragment, De Amore 
Prolis (493 s—497 τὶ. 

> Cf. Aristotle, De Generatione Animal. ii. 7 (746 Ὁ 15 ff.), 
ii. 8 (747 a 23 ff.); for Aristotle’s criticism of Empedocles’ 
theory see H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of the Pre- 
socratics, Ὁ. 143,n. 573. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 173, mentions 
some cases of the fertility of mules, see also Cicero, De 
Divinatione, i. 36; ii. 49; Herodotus, iii. 151 ff. 

¢ Cf. Cicero, De Finibus, iv. 21. 

oot 


(96 


) 


- 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


) πρῶτον μὲν οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ μήτε πίθηκον 


αἴσχους φύσει μετέχειν μήτε χελώνην βραδυτῆτος 
3 ~ a \ / » ᾿ \ / 
ἀξιοῦντος, ὅτι μηδὲ κάλλους ἐπιδεκτικὰ μηδὲ τά- 
χους ἐστίν: ἔπειτα τὴν διαφορὰν ἐμποδὼν οὖσαν οὐ 
~ / ~ 
συνορᾷ: λόγος μὲν yap ἐγγίνεται φύσει, σπουδαῖος 
\ / \ / ~ ’ / \ / 
δὲ λόγος καὶ τέλειος ἐξ ἐπιμελείας καὶ διδασκαλίας" 
~ ~ ~ ΡῈ Δ 
διὸ; τοῦ λογικοῦ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐμψύχοις μέτεστιν. ἣν 
\ ~ 5 / \ 3 » > yy 
de ζητοῦσιν ὀρθότητα Kai σοφίαν οὐδ᾽ ἄνθρωπον 
> A 
εἰπεῖν κεκτημένον ἔχουσιν" ws γὰρ" ὄψεως ἔστι 
\ ~~ 
πρὸς ὄψιν διαφορὰ καὶ πτήσεως πρὸς πτῆσιν (οὐ 
/ ¢ > 
yap ὁμοίως ἱέρακες βλέπουσι καὶ τέττιγες οὐδ 
ἀετοὶ πέτονται καὶ πέρδικες), οὕτως οὐδὲ παντὶ 
an ~ μὰ 
λογικῷ μέτεστιν ὡσαύτως τῆς εὑρομένης" τὸ ἄκρον 
9 / \ > 4 Ψ \ / / \ 
εὐστροφίας καὶ ὀξύτητος" ἐπεὶ δείγματά ye πολλὰ 
κοινωνίας καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ τοῦ πανούργου περὶ 
Ss \ 
τοὺς πορισμοὺς καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας, ὥσπερ ad καὶ 
wn » 7 > y / > / » 
τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀδικίας δειλίας ἀβελτερίας, ἔνεστιν 
A a > ~ 
αὐτοῖς. καὶ μαρτυρεῖ TO νυνὶ πεποιηκὸς ἐν τοῖς 
[7 A 
νεανίσκοις τὴν ἅμιλλαν: ws yap οὔσης τινὸς δια- 
~ ¢ - Ὁ 
φορᾶς, οἱ μὲν τὰ χερσαῖά φασιν οἱ δὲ τὰ θαλάσσια 


« 


E μᾶλλον προῆχθαι φύσει πρὸς ἀρετήν: ὃ δὴ καὶ 


~ / > / A σ 
δῆλόν €O7Tl, παραβαλλομένων πελαργοῖς L7T7T WV 
/ « \ \ / ¢ 3 
ποτάαμιων (οἱ μὲν yap τρέφουσι TOUS TTATEPAS, οἱ ὃ 
εἰ \ / > / \ 
ἀποκτιννύουσιν ἵνα τὰς μητέρας ὀχεύωσι) καὶ περι- 
1 διὸ Porphyry: διὰ. 
5 ἔχουσιν] Porphyry adds κἂν μυρίοι δὲ ὦσιν. 
3 ὡς γὰρ Meziriacus : ὥσπερ. 
ε / / 
4 εὑρομένης) δεχομένης Porphyry. 


2 Cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 54. 
ὃ Cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 13. 34. 
¢ Cf. 992 pv infra. 
338 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 962 


receive any reason at all is, in the first place, no 
better than one who asserts that apes are not natur- 
ally ugly or tortoises naturally slow for the reason 
that they are not capable of possessing beauty or 
speed. In the second place, he fails to observe the 
distinction which is right before his eyes: mere 
reason is implanted by nature, but real and perfect 
reason “ is the product of care and education. And 
this is why every living creature has the faculty of 
reasoning ; but if what they seek is true reason and 
wisdom, not even man may be said to possess it.? 
For as one capacity for seeing or flying differs from 
another (hawks and cicadas do not see alike, nor do 
eagles and partridges fly alike), so also not every 
reasoning creature has in the same way a mental 
dexterity or acumen that has attained perfection. 
For just as there are many examples in animals of 
social instincts and bravery and ingenuity in ways 
and means and in domestic arrangements, so, on 
the other hand, there are many examples of the oppo- 
site : injustice, cowardliness, stupidity.” And the very 
factor which brought about our young men’s contest 
to-day provides confirmation. It is on an assumption 
of difference that the two sides assert, one that land 
animals, the other that sea animals, are naturally 
more advanced toward virtue. This is clear also if 
you contrast hippopotamuses 4 with storks’: the 
latter support their fathers, while the former kill 
them / in order to consort with their mothers. The 


4 Cf. Herodotus, ii. 71; Aristotle, Historia Animal. ii. 7 
(502 a 9-15), though the latter passage may be interpolated. 
Porphyry reads “* contrast river-horses with land-horses.”’ 

é Cf. Aristotle, op. cit. ix. 13 (615 b 23 ff.); Aelian, De 
Natura Animal. iii. 23; Philo, 61 (p. 129). 

7 And eat them: Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 19. 


339 


(962) 


963 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


a / ¢ \ \ > V \ r ek \ 
στεραῖς περδίκων' οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀφανίζουσι τὰ φὰ καὶ 
διαφθείρουσι, τῆς θηλείας, ὃ ὅταν ἐπωάζῃ, μὴ προσ- 
δεχομένης" τὴν ὀχείαν, οἱ δὲ καὶ διαδέχονται τὴν ἐπι- 
μέλειαν, ἐν “μέρει θάλποντες τὰ φὰ καὶ “Ψωμίζουσι 
πρότεροι τὰ νεόττια, καὶ τὴν θήλειαν, ἐὰν πλείονα 
χρόνον Hele ates κόπτων ὁ ἄρρην εἰσελαύνει 
πρὸς τὰ φὰ καὶ τοὺς νεοττούς. ὄνοις δὲ καὶ προ- 
βάτοις ᾿Αντίπατρος. ἐγκαλῶν ὀλιγωρίαν καθαριότη- 
τος οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως" παρεῖδε τὰς λύγκας" καὶ τὰς 
χελιδόνας, ὧν αἱ μὲν ἐκτοπίζουσι παντάπασι κρύπ- 

w 6 / \ 7, 4 eo. 
Tovoa καὶ adavilovoa τὸ λυγκούριον,ἡ at δὲ χελι- 
δόνες ἔξω στρεφομένους διδάσκουσι τοὺς νεοττοὺς 
ἀφιέναι τὸ περίττωμα." 

/ \ , / / 6 > / > 

Καίτοι διὰ τί δένδρου δένδρον" od λέγομεν apa- 
θέστερον, ὡς κυνὸς πρόβατον οὐδὲ λαχάνου λάχανον 
> / ε ” / av / > 
ἀνανδρότερον, ws ἔλαφον λέοντος; ἢ καθάπερ ev 
τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ἕτερον ἑτέρου βραδύτερον οὐκ ἔστιν 
οὐδὲ μικροφωνότερον ἐν τοῖς ἀναύδοις, οὕτως οὐδὲ 
δειλότερον οὐδὲ νωθρότερον οὐδ᾽ ἀκρατέστερον, 
@ 8 \ / ΄ 9. © ~ A 7 ” 
οἷς" μὴ φύσει πᾶσιν" ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν δύναμις ; ἄλλοις 

1 So Porphyry: τὰς θηλείας, ὅταν ἐπωάζωσιν οὐ προσδεχο- 
μένας. 
οἶδ᾽ ὅπως Nauck: οἶδα πῶς (οἶδεν ὅπως Porphyry). 
λύγκας Hercher: λύγγας. 
λυγκούριον Nauck : λυγγούριον. 
περίττωμα Porphyry : περίττευμα. 
δένδρου δένδρον Benseler: δένδρον δένδρου. 


δειλότερον Porphyry : δεινότερον. 
οἷς] ὅπου Porphyry. ® πᾶσιν] πάρεστιν Reiske. 


to 


on on ᾿΄ῬῬὉ ὦ 


« Of. Aristotle, Historia Animal. vi. 4 (562 Ὁ 17); Aelian, 
De Natura Animal. iii. 45. 

» Cf. Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 8 (613 b 27 ff.); 
Aelian, De Natura Animal. iii. 16, and cf. iv. 1,163 of pea- 
cocks in Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 161. 


340 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 962-963 


same is true if you compare doves α with partridges ὃ ; 
for the partridge cock steals the eggs and destroys 
them since the female will not τρεῖς with him 
while she is sitting, whereas male doves assume a 
part in the care of the nest, taking turns at keeping 
the eggs warm and being ΤΉ: es the first to feed 
the fledglings ; and if the female happens to be away 
for too long a time, the male strikes her with his 
beak and drives her back to her eggs or squabs. And 
while Antipater © was reproaching asses and sheep 
for their neglect of cleanliness, I don’t know how he 
happened to overlook lynxes and swallows?; for 
lynxes dispose of their excrement by concealing and 
doing away with it, while swallows teach their nest- 
lings to turn tail and void themselves outward. 
Why, moreover, do we not say that one tree is less 
intelligent than another, as a sheep is by compari- 
son with a dog; or one vegetable more cowardly than 
another, as a stag is by comparison with a lion? Is 
the reason not that, just as it is impossible to call one 
immovable object slower than another, or one dumb 
thing more mute than another, so among all the crea- 
tures to whom Nature has not given the faculty of 
understanding, we cannot say that one is more coward- 
ly or more slothful or more intemperate ? Whereas it 


¢ Von Arnim, S.V.F. iii, p. 251, Antipater of Tarsus, 
frag. 47. We know from Plutarch’s Aetia Physica, 38 that 
Antipater wrote a book on animals. On the other hand, 
Dyroff (Blatter f. d. Bay. Gymn. xxiii, 1897, p. 403) argued 
for Antipater of Tyre; he believed, in fact, that the present 
work was mainly directed against this Antipater. Schuster, 
op. cit. p. 77, has shown this to be unlikely. 
¢ Cf. Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 7 (612 b 30 f.); Plu- 
tarch, Mor. 727 p-r; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 92; Philo, 22 
(p. 111). 
341 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


> es » 
(965) δ᾽ ἄλλως κατὰ τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον παροῦσα τὰς 
ὁρωμένας διαφορὰς πεποίηκεν. 
5 > \ \ “ » > 
5. saka. ᾿Αλλὰ θαυμαστὸν ὅσον ἄνθρωπος εὐ- 
μαθείᾳ" καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ καὶ τοῖς περὶ δικαιοσύνην καὶ 
κοινωνίαν διαφέρει τῶν ζῴων. 
x \ \ ale nen Ban \ A 
ArT. Kat yap ἐκείνων, ὦ ἑταῖρε, πολλὰ τοῦτο 
\ / \ / ~ > »Μ ἘΠ 
μὲν μεγέθει καὶ ποδωκείᾳ τοῦτο δ᾽ ὄψεως ῥώμῃ 
καὶ ἀκοῆς ἀκριβείᾳ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀπολέλοιπεν" 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο τυφλὸς" οὐδ᾽ ἀδύνατος οὐδ᾽ 

B ἄωτος" ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν: ἀλλὰ καὶ θέομεν εἰ καὶ 

/ > / \ / > \ A 
βραδύτερον ἐλάφων, καὶ βλέπομεν εἰ Kal χεῖρον 
ἱεράκων": ἰσχύος τε καὶ μεγέθους ἡ φύσις ἡμᾶς οὐκ 
ἀπεστέρησεν, καίτοι τὸ μηδὲν ἐν τούτοις πρὸς ἐλέ- 
ῴφαντα καὶ κάμηλον ὄντας. οὐκοῦν ὁμοίως μηδὲ 
τὰ θηρία λέγωμεν, εἰ νωθρότερον φρονεῖ καὶ κάκιον 
διανοεῖται, μὴ διανοεῖσθαι μηδὲ φρονεῖν ὅλως μηδὲ 

~ / > ΄ \ ~ \ / 
κεκτῆσθαι λόγον, ἀσθενῆ δὲ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ θολερόν, 
ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμὸν ἀμβλυώττοντα καὶ τεταραγμένον. 
>? \ \ \ \ / > / \ / 
et δὲ μὴ πολλὰ τοὺς νεανίσκους αὐτίκα δὴ μάλα 
προσεδόκων τὸν μὲν ἐκ γῆς τὸν δ᾽ ἐκ θαλάττης 
~ / 

Ο ἐνταῦθα συνερανίσειν, φιλολόγους καὶ φιλογραμ- 
μάτους ὄντας, οὐκ ἂν ἀπεσχόμην σοι" μυρία μὲν 
εὐμαθείας μυρία δ᾽ εὐφυΐας παραδείγματα θηρίων 

- ¢ - > ~ 
διηγούμενος, ὧν ἄμαις καὶ σκάφαις ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν 
1 εὐμαθείᾳ Porphyry: εὐηθείᾳ. 
2 κωφὸς οὐδὲ τυφλὸς Porphyry. 
οὐδ᾽ ἄωτος omitted by Porphyry. 
4 θέομεν. . . βλέπομεν εἰ Kal χεῖρον ἱεράκων] added from 
Porphyry ; the mss. of Plutarch have only χεῖρον ἱεράκων 
or χειρῶν Kal ὀμμάτων. 


5 συνερανιεῖν ? 
® go. Bernardakis: σου. 


342 


[2 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 963 


is the presence of understanding, of one kind in one 
animal, of another kind in another, and in varying 
degree, that has produced the observable differences. 

5. socLarus. Yet it is astonishing how greatly man 
surpasses the animals in his capacity for learning and 
in sagacity and in the requirements of justice and 
social life. 

AuTosuLus. ‘There are in fact, my friend, many 
animals which surpass all men, not only in bulk and 
swiftness, but also in keen sight and sharp hearing ¢ ; 
but for all that man is not blind or crippled or ear- 
less. We can run, if less swiftly than deer; and 
see, if less keenly than hawks; nor has Nature de- 
prived us of strength and bulk even though, by 
comparison with the elephant and the camel, we 
amount to nothing in these matters.? In the same 
way, then, let us not say of beasts that they are 
completely lacking in intellect and understanding 
and do not possess reason even though their under- 
standing is less acute and their intellect inferior to 
ours ; what we should say is that their intellect is 
feeble and turbid, like a dim and clouded eye. And 
if I did not expect that our young men, learned and 
studious as they are, would very shortly present us 
here, one with a large collection of examples drawn 
from the land, the other with his from the sea, I 
should not have denied myself the pleasure of giving 
you countless examples of the docility and native 
capacity of beasts—of which fair Rome ὁ has provided 
us a reservoir from which to draw in pails and buckets, 

@ Cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, De Fato,27; Pliny, Nat. 
Hast. viii. 10; x. 191. 

ὃ Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 145, reports a singular deduction 
from this theme; see also Seneca, De Beneficiis, ii. 29. 1. 

¢ See, for example, 968 c, E infra. 


343 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


3) βασιλικῶν ἀρύσασθαι θεάτρων ἡ ἡ καλὴ Ῥώμη παρ- 
ἔσχηκε. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐκείνοις νεαρὰ καὶ ἄθικτα 
πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἐγκαλλωπίσασθαι καταλείπωμεν. 

Βούλομαι δὲ μικρόν τι μετὰ σοῦ σκέψασθαι καθ᾽ 
ἡσυχίαν. οἶμαι γὰρ ἰδίαν τινὰ μέρους ἑκάστου καὶ 
δυνάμεως φαυλότητα καὶ πήρωσιν εἶναι καὶ νόσον, 
ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμοῦ τυφλότητα καὶ σκέλους χωλότητα 
καὶ ψελλότητα γλώσσης, ἄλλου δὲ μηδενός: οὐ γὰρ 
ἔστι τυφλότης μὴ πεφυκότος ὁρᾶν οὐδὲ χωλότης 
μὴ πεφυκότος βαδίζειν, ψελλόν τε τῶν ἀγλώσσων 
uP τῶν ἀναύδων φύσει “τραυλὸν οὐδὲν ἂν προσείποις" 
οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ παραπαῖον ἢ παραφρονοῦν ἢ μαινό- 
μενον, ᾧ μὴ τὸ φρονεῖν Kal διανοεῖσθαι καὶ λογί- 
ζεσθαι κατὰ φύσιν ὑ ὑπῆρχεν᾽ οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἔστιν ἐν πάθει 
γενέσθαι μὴ “κεκτημένον δύναμιν ἧς τὸ πάθος ἢ 
στέρησις ἢ πήρωσις ἢ τις ἄλλη κάκωσις ἦν." ἀλλὰ 
μὴν ἐντετύχηκάς γε λυττώσαις κυσίν, ἐγὼ δὲ! καὶ 
ἵπποις" ἔνιοι δέ φασι καὶ βοῦς μαίνεσθαι καὶ ἀλώ- 
πεκας" ἀρκεῖ δὲ τὸ τῶν κυνῶν, ὃ ἀναμφισβήτητόν 
ἐστι, καὶ μαρτυρεῖ λόγον ἔχειν καὶ διάνοιαν οὐ 
φαύλην τὸ ζῷον, ἧς ταραττομένης καὶ συγχεομένης 
ἡ λεγομένη λύττα καὶ μανία. πάθος ἐστίν: οὔτε γὰρ 
ὄψιν ἀλλοιουμένην αὐτῶν" οὔτ᾽ ἀκοὴν ὁρῶμεν" ἀλλ᾽ 
ὥσπερ ἀνθρώπου μελαγχολῶντος 7 παρακόπτοντος 
ὃ μὴ λέγων ἐξεστάναι καὶ διεφθορέναι τὸ φρονοῦν 
καὶ λογιζόμενον καὶ μνημονεῦον ἄτοπός ἐστι (καὶ 
γὰρ ἡ συνήθεια ταῦτά γε κατηγορεῖ τῶν παρα- 

1 καὶ Porphyry: 7. 
2 ἐν πάθει Porphyry: εὐπαθὲς. 
3 ἦν] ἐστιν Porphyry. 
4 ἐγὼ δὲ] ἔτι δὲ Porphyry. 5 αὐτοῖς Porphyry. 





* So too, perhaps, wolves in Theocritus, iv. 11. 


344 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 963 


as it were, from the imperial spectacles. Let us 
leave this subject, therefore, fresh and untouched 
for them to exercise their art upon in discourse. 
There is, however, one small matter which I should 
like to discuss with you quietly. It is my opinion 
that each part and faculty has its own particular 
weakness or defect or ailment which appears in 
nothing else, as blindness in the eye, lameness in the 
leg, stuttering in the tongue. There can be no 
blindness in an organ which was not created to see, 
or lameness in a part which was not designed for 
walking ; nor would you ever describe an animal 
without a tongue as stuttering, or one voiceless by 
nature as inarticulate. And in the same way you 
would not call delirious or witless or mad anything 
that was not endowed by Nature with reason or intelli- 
gence or understanding ; for it is impossible to ail 
where you have no faculty of which the ailment is 
a deficiency or loss or some other kind of impair- 
ment. Yet certainly you have encountered mad 
dogs, and I have also known of mad horses; and 
there are some who say that cattle and foxes also go 
mad.? But dogs will do, since no one questions the 
fact in their case, which provides evidence that the 
creature possesses reason and a by no means despi- 
cable intellectual faculty. What is called rabies and 
‘madness is an ailment of that faculty when it becomes 
disturbed and disordered. For we observe no de- 
rangement either of the dogs’ sight or of their hear- 
ing; yet, Just as when a human being suffers from 
melancholy or insanity, anyone is absurd who does 
not admit that it is the organ that thinks and reasons 
and remembers which has been displaced or damaged 
(we habitually say, in fact, of madmen that they “ are 


345 


(963) 


964 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ \ > > ¢ A > > > 
φρονούντων μὴ εἶναι παρ᾽ αὑτοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐκπεπτω- 
κέναι τῶν λογισμῶν), οὕτως 6 τοὺς λυττῶντας 

͵ὔ + / / > > a. “Ὁ ~ 
κύνας ἄλλο τι πεπονθέναι νομίζων ἀλλ οὐχὶ τῷ 
φρονεῖν πεφυκότι' καὶ λογίζεσθαι καὶ μνημονεύειν 
ἀναπεπλησμένους ταραχῆς καὶ παραπεπαικότας 
ἀγνοεῖν τὰ φίλτατα πρόσωπα καὶ φεύγειν τὰς 
συντρόφους διαίτας, ἢ παρορᾶν τὸ φαινόμενον 
ἔοικεν ἢ συνορῶν" τὸ γινόμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ φιλονει- 
κεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 

~ “-“ - ς 
6. s0KA. ᾿Ορθῶς μοι δοκεῖς ὑπονοεῖν: οἱ γὰρ 
ond ~ ~ / 

ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ τοῦ Ilepimdtov μάλιστα πρὸς 
τοὐναντίον ἐντείνονται τῷ λόγῳ, τῆς δικαιοσύνης 

ω >? \ 
τότ᾽ ἄν" γένεσιν οὐκ ἐχούσης, ἀλλὰ παντάπασιν 
ἀσυστάτου καὶ ἀνυπάρκτου γινομένης, εἰ πᾶσι τοῖς 
ζῴοις λόγου μέτεστι: γίνεται γὰρ ἢ τὸ ἀδικεῖν 
ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἀφειδοῦσιν αὐτῶν, ἢ μὴ χρωμένοις" 
τὸ ζῆν ἀδύνατον καὶ ἄπορον: καὶ τρόπον τινὰ 
θηρίων βίον βιωσόμεθα, τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων προ- 
έμενοι χρείας. ἀφίημι γὰρ Νομάδων καὶ Tpwydo- 
δυτῶν ἀνεξευρέτους ἀριθμῷ μυριάδας, οἵ τροφὴν 
σάρκας ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἴσασιν: ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῖς ἡμέ- 

a ~ A , 
ρως καὶ φιλανθρώπως ζῆν δοκοῦσι ποῖον ἔργον 
~ - / / > 
ἀπολείπεται γῆς, ποῖον ἐν θαλάττῃ, τίς ἐναέριος" 
’ / 
τέχνη, Tis κόσμος διαίτης, ἂν ὡς προσήκει Aoyt- 
- \ ¢ / ~ A ͵7] Ss > ~ 
κοῖς Kat ὁμοφύλοις πᾶσι Tots ζῴοις οὖσιν ἀβλαβῶς 
ll 
καὶ μετ᾽ εὐλαβείας προσφέρεσθαι μάθωμεν, ἔργον 
ες > > U ~ 
ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν. οὐδὲν οὖν φάρμακον οὐδ᾽ ἴαμα τῆς 
1 τοῦ φρονεῖν πεφυκότος... ἀναπεπλησμένου . . . παραπεπτω- 
κότος (leg. παραπεπαικότος) Porphyry. 
2 7 συνορῶν Porphyry : μὴ συνορῶν. 
3 τότ᾽ av W.C. H. after Post (ἔτ᾽ av): ἑτέραν: 
4 χρωμένοις Porphyry : χρωμένων αὐτοῖς. 
5 evaepios Post: ἐν ὄρεσι (ἐναργὴς Porphyry). 
346 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 963-964 


not themselves,” but have “fallen out of their wits’’), 
just so, whoever believes that rabid dogs have any 
other ailment than an affliction of their natural organ 
of judgement and reason and memory so that, when 
this has become infected with disorder and insanity, 
they no longer recognize beloved faces and shun 
their natural haunts—such a man, I say, either must 
be disregarding the evidence or, if he does take note 
of the conclusion to which it leads, must be quarrel- 
ling with the truth.” 

6. socLtarus. Your inference seems quite justified. 
For the Stoics ° and Peripatetics strenuously argue 
on the other side, to the effect that justice could 
not then come into existence, but would remain 
completely without form or substance, if all the 
beasts partake of reason. For ¢ either we are neces- 
sarily unjust if we do not spare them; or, if we 
do not take them for food, life becomes impracticable 
or impossible ; in a sense we shall be living the life 
of beasts once we give up the use of beasts.4 I omit 
the numberless hosts of Nomads and Troglodytes who 
know no other food but flesh. As for us who believe 
our lives to be civilized and humane, it is hard 
to say what pursuit on land or sea, what aerial art,’ 
what refinement of living, is left to us if we are to 
learn to deal innocently and considerately with all 
creatures, as we are bound to if they possess reason 
and are of one stock with us. So we have no help or 


* The Stoics again: cf. Galen, De Hippocratis et Platonis 
Placitis, vy. 1 (p. 431 Kiihn). 

®’ Von Arnim, S.V.F. iii, p. 90. 

¢ From this point to the end of chapter 6 (964 c) the text 
is quoted by Porphyry, De Abstinentia, i. 4-6 (pp. 88-89, ed. 
Nauck): cf. the note on 959 F supra. 4 Cf. Mor. 86}. 

¢ That is beasts, fish, and fowl in earth, sea, and air. 


347 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(964) ἢ τὸν βίον ἀναιρούσης ἢ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἀπορίας 
ἔχομεν,᾽ ἂν μὴ τὸν ἀρχαῖον ὅρον καὶ νόμον φυλάτ- 
τωμεν, ᾧ καθ᾽ “Holodov δ᾽ τὰς φύσεις διελὼν καὶ 
θέμενος ἰδίᾳ τῶν γενῶν ἑκάτερον 


ἰχθύσι μὲν καὶ θηρσὶ καὶ οἰωνοῖς πετεηνοῖς 

” > / > \ > / ” > > - 
ἔσθειν ἀλλήλους, ἐπεὶ οὐ δίκη ἔστι μετ᾽ αὐτοῖς, 
ἀνθρώποισι δ᾽ ἔδωκε δίκην 


πρὸς ἀλλήλους. οἷς δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ δικαιοπραγεῖν 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐδ᾽ ἡμῖν πρὸς ἐκεῖνα γίνεται τὸ 
ἀδικεῖν: ὡς οἵ γε τοῦτον προέμενοι τὸν λόγον οὔτ᾽ 
C ~ ~ 4 LAA ” \ 5 n~ 4 
᾿ εὐρεῖαν᾽ ἄλλην οὔτε λιτὴν" TH δικαιοσύνῃ παρεισελ- 
θεῖν ὁδὸν ἀπολελοίπασι. 
7. ΑΥΤ. Ταῦτα μέν, ὦ φίλε “ τἀπὸ καρδίας 
ἐξείρηκας: οὐ μὴν δοτέον, ὥσπερ δυστοκούσαις 
/ / ~ , > / 
γυναιξί, περιάψασθαι tots φιλοσόφοις ὠκυτόκιον, 
ἵνα ῥᾳδίως καὶ ἀταλαιπώρως τὸ δίκαιον ἡμῖν ἀπο- 
τέκωσιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτοὶ τῷ ᾿Κπικούρῳ διδόα- 
σιν ὑπὲρ τῶν μεγίστων σμικρὸν οὕτω πρᾶγμα 
καὶ φαῦλον, ἄτομον παρεγκλῖναι μίαν ἐπὶ τοὐλά- 
ιστον, ὅπως ἄστρα καὶ ζῷα κατὰ τύχην᾽ παρεισ- 
/ \ \ > 3 ε ~ \ j > / / \ 
ἔλθῃ καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν μὴ ἀπόληται" δεικνύναι δὲ 
\ » “Ἃ / ~ / 7 
τὸ ἄδηλον ἢ λαμβάνειν τι τῶν προδήλων κελεύουσι 


»)} 


1 ἔχομεν Diibner: οὐδὲν ἔχομεν. 
2 ὁ] ὁ Ζεὺς Porphyry: omitted by most ss. 
8 τὸ Porphyry: τι. 
4 οὔτ᾽ εὐρεῖαν Porphyry: οὔτε χρείαν. 
5 λιτὴν] λεπτὴν Porphyry. 
6. καρδίας W.C. Η. : καρδίας τῶν ἀνδρῶν. 
? κατὰ τύχην Sandbach: καὶ τύχη. 





α Works and Days, 277-279; cf. Aelian, De Natura 
Animal, vi. 50; Mair on Oppian, Hal. ii. 43. 


348 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 964 


cure for this dilemma which either deprives us of life 
itself or of justice, unless we do preserve that ancient 
limitation and law by which, according to Hesiod,’ 
he who distinguished the natural kinds and gave 
each class its special domain : 


To fish and beasts and winged birds allowed 
Licence to eat each other, for no right 
Exists among them; right, he gave to men 


for dealing with each other. Those who know nothing 
of right action toward us can receive no wrong from 
us either.? For those who have rejected this argu- 
ment have left no path, either broad or narrow, by 
which justice may slip in. 

7. auTopuLus. This, my friend, has been spoken 
“from the heart.”’° We certainly must not allow 
philosophers, as though they were women in difficult 
labour, to put about their necks a charm for speedy 
delivery so that they may bring justice to birth for 
us easily and without hard labour. For they them- 
selves do not concede to Epicurus,? for the sake of the 
highest considerations, a thing so small and trifling as 
the slightest deviation of a single atom—which would 
permit the stars and living creatures to slip in by 
chance and would preserve from destruction the 
principle of free will. But, seeing that they bid him 
demonstrate whatever is not obvious or take as his 
starting-point something that is obvious, how are they 


» This seems to have been Plutarch’s own attitude toward 
the question, at least later on in life: see Life of Cato Maior, 
v. 2 (339 a). 

¢ Cf. Euripides, frag. 412 (Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. 
p. 486); quoted more completely in Wor. 63 a. 

4 Usener, Epicurea, Ὁ. 351; see Bailey on Lucretius, ii. 
216 ff.;: Mor. 1015 B-c. 


349 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(964) πῶς" καὶ προσήκει τὸ περὶ τῶν ζῴων ὑποτίθεσθαι 
πρὸς τὴν δικαιοσύνην, εἰ μήθ᾽ ὁμολογεῖται μήτ᾽ 
D ἄλλως ἀποδεικνύουσιν; ἔχει γὰρ ἑτέραν ὁδὸν ἐ ἐκεῖ 
τὸ δίκαιον οὐ σφαλερὰν καὶ παράκρημνον οὕτω καὶ 
διὰ τῶν ἐναργῶν ἀνατρεπομένων" a ἄγουσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἥν, 
Πλάτωνος ὑφηγουμένου, δείκνυσιν οὑμὸς υἱός, ὦ 
Σώκλαρε, σὸς δ᾽ ἑταῖρος, τοῖς μὴ φιλομαχεῖν € ἕπε- 
σθαι δὲ καὶ μανθάνειν βουλομένοις. ἐπεὶ τό γε μὴ 
παντάπασι καθαρεύειν ἀδικίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον. οὕτω 
τὰ ζῷα μεταχειριζόμενον ᾿᾿μπεδοκλῆς καὶ Ἣρά- 
a - 5 \ /, / > P 4 
κλειτος ws ἀληθὲς προσδέχονται, πολλάκις ὀδυρό- 
~ \ 

μενοι Kat λοιδοροῦντες τὴν φύσιν, Ws ἀνάγκην Kal 
/ Ss 3 \ \ \ > > \ 
E πόλεμον οὖσαν, ἀμιγὲς δὲ μηδὲν μηδ᾽ εἰλικρινὲς 

” > \ \ AAG > / 3 ~ 
ἔχουσαν ἀλλὰ διὰ πολλῶν κἀδίκων" παθῶν περαινο- 

\ 
μένην: ὅπου Kal τὴν γένεσιν αὐτὴν ἐξ ἀδικίας 
συντυγχάνειν λέγουσι, τῷ θνητῷ συνερχομένου τοῦ 
ἀθανάτου, καὶ τρέφεσθαι' τὸ γεννώμενον παρὰ 
vow μέλεσι" τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἀποσπωμένοις. 

Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἄκρατα καὶ πικρὰ φαί- 
νεται κατακόρως: ἑτέρα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐμμελὴς παρη- 
γορία, μήτε τῶν ζῴων τὸν λόγον ἀφαιρουμένη καὶ 
σῴζουσα χρωμένων αὐτοῖς ws’ προσήκει τὸ δίκαιον" 
ἣν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ παλαιῶν εἰσαγόντων" συστᾶσα 

/ 5 ᾿ / 2 / \ >) / 
λαιμαργία μεθ᾽ ἡδυπαθείας ἐξέβαλε καὶ ἠφάνισεν, 
1 κελεύουσι πῶς added by Sandbach after Usener. 

2 ἀνατρεπομένων Meziriacus : ἀνατρεπόμενον. 
3 κἀδίκων Leonicus: καὶ δικαίων. 
4 τρέφεσθαι Meziriacus : τέρπεσθαι. 
5 γεννώμενον Reiske : γενόμενον. 


® μέλεσι] μέρεσι Emperius. 
7 ws Meziriacus: πῶς. 8 εἰσαγαγόντων Emperius. 


« That they are irrational. 
» For this difficult and corrupt passage the admirable 


350 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 964 


in any position to make this statement about animals @ 
a basis of their own account of justice, when it is 
neither generally accepted nor otherwise demon- 
strated by them?? For justice has another way to 
establish itself, a way which is neither so treacherous 
nor so precipitous, nor is it a route lined with the 
wreckage of obvious truths. It is the road which, 
under the guidance of Plato,° my son and your com- 
panion,@ Soclarus, points out to those who have no 
love of wrangling, but are willing to be led and to 
learn. For certain it is that Empedocles’ and Hera- 
clitus 7 accept as true the charge that man is not 
altogether innocent of injustice when he treats ani- 
malsas he does; oftenand often do they lament and ex- 
claim against Nature, declaring that she is “‘ Neces- 
sity’ and “ War,’ that she contains nothing unmixed 
and free from tarnish, that her progress is marked 
by many unjust inflictions. As an instance, say, even 
birth itself springs from injustice, since it is a union 
of mortal with immortal, and the offspring is nourished 
unnaturally on members torn from the parent. 
These strictures, however, seem to be unpalatably 
strong and bitter; for there is an alternative, an 
inoffensive formula which does not, on the one hand, 
deprive beasts of reason, yet does, on the other, 
preserve the justice of those who make fit use of 
them. When the wise men of old had introduced this, 
gluttony joined luxury to cancel and annul it ; Pytha- 


exposition and reconstruction of F. H. Sandbach (Class. 
Quart. xxxv, p. 114) has been followed. 

¢ Laws, 782 σι 4 Plutarch himself; cf. Mor. 734 π. 

4 Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok. i, p. 366, frag. B 135; 
and see Aristotle, Rhetoric, i. 13. 2 (1373 b 14). 

7. Diels-Kranz, op. cit. i, p. 169, frag. B 80; Bywater, 
frag. 62. 


351 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(964) αὖθις δὲ Πυθαγόρας ἀνελάμβανε, διδάσκων ὠφελεῖ- 
F σθαι μὴ ἀδικοῦντας: οὐ γὰρ ἀδικοῦσιν οἱ τὰ μὲν 
ΝΜ \ \ -“ / \ > 
ἄμικτα καὶ βλαβερὰ κομιδῇ κολάζοντες καὶ ἀπο- 
κτιννύοντες, τὰ δ᾽ ἥμερα καὶ φιλάνθρωπα ποιούμενοι 
τιθασὰ καὶ συνεργὰ χρείας, πρὸς ἣν ἕκαστον εὖ 
πέφυκεν, 


7 ” > > al \ / / 
ἵππων ὄνων τ᾽ ὀχεῖα' Kal ταύρων γονάς, 
e - δον δὲ 
ὧν ὁ Αἰσχύλου Τ]ρομηθεὺς “ δοῦναι ᾿᾿ φησὶν ἡμῖν 
965 ἀντίδουλα Kal πόνων ἐκδέκτορα-" 


\ \ / / a ἢ \ 
κυσὶ δὲ χρώμενοι προφυλάττουσιν, αἶγάς τε Kat 
Ἁ 
οἷς ἀμελγομένας καὶ κειρομένας" νέμοντες. οὐ γὰρ 
> A A ~ > \ / > / - 3 / 
ἀναιρεῖται τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲ βίος ἀπόλλυται Tots ἀνθρώ- 
υ 7 ~ 
ποις, av μὴ Aomddas ἰχθύων μηδ᾽ ἥπατα χηνῶν 
~ 3. κῷ 
ἔχωσι μηδὲ βοῦς μηδ᾽ ἐρίφους κατακόπτωσιν ἐπ 
3 / > > ‘¢ > / \ / 
εὐωχίᾳ, μηδ᾽ ἀλύοντες ἐν θεάτροις μηδὲ παίζοντες 
~ \ 
ἐν θήραις τὰ μὲν ἀναγκάζωσι τολμᾶν ἄκοντα καὶ 
/ \ \ > > » 0 / ὃ 
μάχεσθαι, τὰ δὲ μηδ᾽ ἀμύνεσθαι πεφυκότα δια- 
/ 
φθείρωσι. τὸν yap παίζοντα Kal τερπόμενον οἶμαι 
A a“ ¢ a σ 
συμπαίζουσι δεῖν χρῆσθαι καὶ ἱλαροῖς, οὐχ ὥσπερ 
1 τ᾽ ὀχεῖα Mor. 98 c: τε ὀχείαν. 


2 ἀμελγομένας καὶ κειρομένας Reiske: ἀμελγόμενα καὶ κειρό- 
μενα. 





«α Cf.959 τ supra; Mor. 129 ©; frag. xxxiv. 145 (vol. VII, 
p. 169 Bernardakis). 

» Cf., e.g., Plato, Republic, 352 x. 

¢ From the Prometheus Unbound, frag. 194 (Nauck, 
Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 65); quoted again in Mor. 98 c. 

4 ** There are significant undercurrents here. Of the 
animals domesticated by man, Plutarch first mentions only 
the horse, the ass, and the ox, noting their employment as 


352 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 964-965 


goras,* however, reintroduced it, teaching us how to 
profit without injustice. There is no injustice, surely, 
in punishing and slaying animals that are anti-social 
and merely injurious, while taming those that are 
gentle and friendly to man and making them our 
helpers in the tasks for which they are severally 
fitted by nature ὃ: 


Offspring of horse and ass and seed of bulls 


which Aeschylus’ ° Prometheus says that he bestowed 
on us 
To serve us and relieve our labours ; 


and thus we make use of dogs as sentinels and keep 
herds of goats and sheep that are milked and shorn.¢ 
For living is not abolished nor life terminated when 
a man has no more platters of fish or paté de foie gras 
or mincemeat of beef or kids’ flesh for his banquets ὁ 
—or when he no longer, idling in the theatre or 
hunting for sport, compels some beasts against their 
will to stand their ground and fight, while he destroys 
others which have not the instinct to fight back even 
in their own defence. For I think sport should be 
joyful and between playmates who are merry on 


servants of man, not as sources of food. Next come dogs, 
then goats and sheep. The key factor is that in the early 
period the cow, the sheep, and the goat were too valuable as 
sources of milk and wool to be recklessly slaughtered for the 
sake of their meat. The pig was the only large domestic 
animal useful almost solely as a source of meat’’ (Andrews). 

e ** Plutarch’s choice of examples of table luxury is apt. 
The enthusiasm of many Greek epicures for fish scandalized 
conservative philosophers. Paté de foie gras ranked high as 
a delicacy, more especially in the Roman period ; the mince- 
meat mentioned is surely the Roman isicia, dishes with 
finely minced beef or pork as the usual basis, many recipes 
for which appear in Apicius ”’ (Andrews). 


VOL. XII N 353 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 
(965) 5 Biv ὄλεμει τὰ raided ζ Sv βατρά 
ρια παίζοντα τῶν βατράχων 
τοῖς λίθοις ἐφίεσθαι, τοὺς δὲ βατράχους μηκέτι 
παίζοντας ἀλλ᾽ ἀληθῶς ἀποθνήσκειν, οὕτω κυνη- 
γεῖν καὶ ἁλιεύειν, ὀδυνωμένοις τερπομένους καὶ 
ἀποθνήσκουσι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἀπὸ σκύμνων καὶ νεοσσῶν 
ἐλεεινῶς ἀγομένοις. οὐ γὰρ ot χρώμενοι ζῴοις 
ἀδικοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ χρώμενοι βλαβερῶς καὶ ὀλιγώρως 
καὶ μετ᾽ ὠμότητος. 

8. ΣΩΚΛ. ‘Emioxes, ὦ Αὐτόβουλε, καὶ παρα- 
βαλοῦ τὸ θυρίον' τῆς κατηγορίας" ἐγγὺς γὰρ οἵδε 
προσιόντες πολλοὶ καὶ θηρατικοὶ πάντες, οὗς οὔτε 
μεταθεῖναι ῥᾷάδιον οὔτε λυπεῖν ἀναγκαῖον. 

ΑΥΤ. ᾿Ορθῶς παραινεῖς: ἀλλ᾽ Εὐβίοτον" μὲν εὖ 
Ο οἷδα καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν ἀνεψιὸν ᾿Αρίστωνα, τούς τε 

Διονυσίου παῖδας ἀπὸ Δελφῶν, Αἰακίδην καὶ 

᾿Αριστότιμον τοῦτον, εἶτα Νίκανδρον τὸν Eddu- 

δάμου, χερσαίας © δαήμονας * ἄγρας ὡς Ὅμηρος 
ἔφη, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς ᾿Αριστοτίμου" γενησο- 
μένους" ὥσπερ αὖ πάλιν τούσδε τοὺς νησιώτας καὶ 
παραλίους, ἩΗρακλέωνα τὸν Μεγαρόθεν καὶ Φιλό- 
στρατον τὸν [ὐβοέα, “᾿ τοῖσι θαλάσσια ἔργα μέ- 


unre,’ Φαίδιμος ἔχων περὶ αὑτὸν βαδίζει. 
Τυδείδην δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν γνοίης ποτέροισι μετείη, 
\ \ ¢ / ¢ / > ~ « ce 
τουτονὶ TOV ἡμέτερον ἡλικιώτην ᾿Οπτᾶτον, ὃς “ πολ- 


1 τὸ θυρίον added by Salmasius, cf. Mor. 940 νυ. 
2 Βυβίοτον Hatzidakis and Crénert : εὐβίωτον. 
3 Δελφῶν Leonicus: ἀδελφῶν. 

4 δαήμονας Reiske: δαήμονα. 

5 πρὸς ᾿Αριστοτίμου Pohlenz : ἀριστότιμον. 

8 τοῖσι Reiske: τοῖσί τε. 





“ Bion and Xenocrates were almost alone among the 
eeks in expressing pity for animals. 


Gr 
354 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 965 


both sides, not the sort of which Bion * spoke when 
he remarked that boys throw stones at frogs for fun, 
but the frogs don’t die for “ fun,’’ but in sober earnest.? 
Just so, in hunting and fishing, men amuse them- 
selves with the suffering and death of animals, even 
tearing some of them piteously from their cubs and 
nestlings. The fact is that it is not those who make 
use of animals who do them wrong, but those who 
use them harmfully and heedlessly and in cruel ways. 

8. soctarus. Restrain yourself, Autobulus, and 
turn off the flow of these accusations.“ I see a good 
many gentlemen approaching who are all hunters ; 
you will hardly convert them and you needn’t hurt 
their feelings. 

auTosuLus. Thanks for the warning. Eubiotus, 
however, I know quite well and my cousin Ariston, 
and Aeacides and Aristotimus here, the sons of Diony- 
sius of Delphi, and Nicander, the son of Euthydamus, 
all of them “ expert,’ as Homer @ expresses it, in the 
chase by land—and for this reason they will be on 
Aristotimus’ side. So too yonder comes Phaedimus 
with the islanders and coast-dwellers about him, 
Heracleon from Megara and the Euboean Philo- 
stratus, 

Whose hearts are on deeds of the sea. ἢ 
And here is my contemporary Optatus: like Dio- 
medes, it is 
Hard to tell the side on which he ranges, f 

ὃ See Hartman, De Plutarcho, p. 571; [Aristotle], Eud. 
Eth. vii. 10. 21 (1243 a 20). 

¢ Cf. Mor. 940 τ supra. Possibly a reference to the water- 
clock used in the courts. 

4 Odyssey, viii. 159. 

¢ Cf. Homer, /liad, ii. 614; Odyssey, v. 67. 

7 Homer, /liad, v. 85. 

355 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(965) Aots μὲν ἐνάλου dpelov δὲ πολλοῖς" ἄγρας ἀκροθι- 

νίοις ayAatoas’’ τὴν ᾿Αγροτέραν ἅμα θεὸν καὶ 

Ὁ Δίατυνναν, ἐνταῦθα δῆλός ἐστι πρὸς ἡμᾶς βαδίζων, 

ὡς μηδετέροις προσθήσων ἑαυτόν: ἢ φαύλως εἰ- 

κάζομεν, ὦ φίλε ᾿Οπτᾶτε, κοινόν σε καὶ μέσον 
ἔσεσθαι τῶν νεανίσκων βραβευτήν; 

ΟΠΤΑΤΟΣ. Ilavu μὲν οὖν ὀρθῶς ὑπονοεῖς, ὦ 
Αὐτόβουλε: πάλαι γὰρ ὁ Σόλωνος ἐκλέλοιπε νόμος, 
τοὺς ἐν στάσει μηδετέρῳ μέρει προσγενομένους 
κολάζων. 

“-“ \ / \ ¢ - “ 3 

ΑΥΤ. Δεῦρο δὴ καθίζου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὅπως, εἰ 
δεήσει μάρτυρος, μὴ τοῖς ᾿Αριστοτέλους πράγματα 

E βιβλίοις παρέχωμεν, ἀλλὰ σοὶ δι᾿ ἐμπειρίαν ἕπό- 
A / > ~ \ ~ > / 
μενοι Tots λεγομένοις ἀληθῶς τὴν ψῆφον ἐπιφέ- 
ρωμεν. 
AL» > » / / / νοὶ ¢ 
saKaA. Elev, ὦ ἄνδρες νέοι, γέγονέ τις ὑμῖν ὁμο- 
λογία περὶ τάξεως ; 

ΦΑΙΔΙΜΟΣ. Leéyovev, ὦ Σώκλαρε, πολλὴν παρα- 

σχοῦσα φιλονεικίαν: εἶτα κατ᾽ [ὐριπίδην 


ὁ τῆς τύχης παῖς κλῆρος 


2° aN 7 \ \ ~ / / 
ἐπι TOUTW TAaAYELS TA χέρσαια TT POELOAYVEL δίκαια" 
~ > / 
τῶν ἐνάλων. 
\ > Bvt, / \ \ ” 
saKA. Καιρὸς οὖν, ὦ ᾿Αριστότιμε, σοὶ μὲν ἤδη 
7 x - > > / 
λέγειν, μιν ὃ ακουειν. 
1 ὀρείου δὲ πολλοῖς Diibner: ὀρείου πολλάκις. 
* προεισάγειν δικαιοῖ Hutten and Reiske. 


* Verses of an unknown poet, as recognized by Hubert. 

» Artemis ; on the combined cults see Farnell, Cults of 
the Greek States, ii, pp. 425 ff. 

“ Life of Solon, xx. 1 (89 a-n); Mor. 550 c, 823 τ: 
Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, viii. 5. A fairly well 
attested law, but ‘‘ the name of Solon is used as the collective 


356 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 965 


for “‘ with many a trophy from the sea, many likewise 
from the chase on the mountain, he has glorified’ the 
goddess ὃ who is at once the Huntress and Dictynna. 
It is evident that he is coming to join us with no in- 
tention of attaching himself to either side. Or am 
I wrong, my dear Optatus, in supposing that you will 
be an impartial and neutral umpire between the 
young men ? 

optatus. It is just as you suppose, Autobulus. 
Solon’s ° law, which used to punish those who adhered 
to neither side in a factious outbreak, has long since 
fallen into disuse. 

AUTOBULUS. Come over here, then, and take your 
place beside us so that, if we need evidence, we shall 
not have to disturb the tomes of Aristotle,’ but may 
follow you as expert and return a true verdict on the 
arguments. 

soctarus. Well then, my young friends, have you 
reached any agreement on procedure ἢ 

PHAEDIMUs. We have, Soclarus, though it occa- 
sioned considerable controversy; but at length, as 
Euripides © has it, 

The lot, the child of chance, 


made arbiter, admits into court the case of the land 
animals before that of creatures from the sea. 

socLarus. ‘The time has come, then, Aristotimus, 
for you to speak and us to hear. 


term for the legislative activity of the past ’’ (Linforth, Solon 
the Athenian, p. 283). The penalty was disfranchisement. 
Lysias, xxxi, shows that this law was unknown in his time. 

¢ The zoological works, such as the Natural History and 
the Generation of Animals, which once extended to fifty 
volumes (Pliny, Vat. Hist. viii. 44). 

¢ Nauck, T’rag. Graec. Frag. p. 678, frag. 989 : ef. Mor. 
644 D. 


357 


(965) 


966 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


€ \ > A A / 

9. apistoTimos. Ἢ μὲν ἀγορὰ τοῖς δικαζομέ- 
vos . . | τὰ δὲ τὸν γόνον ἀναλίσκει περὶ τὰς 
ἀποκυήσεις ἐπιτρέχοντα τοῖς θήλεσι. 

Κεστρέως δὲ γένος, οὗς περαίας" καλοῦσιν, ἀπὸ 

- / / ~ ¢ ~ « \ / 
τῆς μύξης τρέφονται τῆς ἑαυτῶν: 6 δὲ πολύπους 
αὑτὸν ἐσθίων κάθηται χειμῶνος 


> > > P ” NN > ” / 
ἐν τ᾽ ἀπύρῳ οἴκῳ καὶ ἐν ἤθεσι λευγαλέοισιν" 


" ἍἋ / Ἃ ~ 
οὕτως ἀργὸς ἢ ἀναίσθητος ἢ γαστρίμαργος ἢ πᾶσι 
/ ” / >] ὃ A \ A / 4 LA 
τούτοις ἔνοχός ἐστι. διὸ καὶ ἅτων αὖ πάλιν 

5» A ~ A > > / \ / 

ἀπεῖπε νομοθετῶν, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἀπεύξατο τοὺς νέους 

{{ / / ” A - ᾽) Ἰδὲ \ 
θαλαττίου θήρας ἔρωτα λαβεῖν. οὐδὲν yap 

5 ~ / > \ / / 999 a 

ἀλκῆς γυμνάσιον οὐδὲ μελέτημα σοφίας οὐδ᾽ ὅσα 

“ “' / ~ > - 
πρὸς ἰσχὺν ἢ τάχος ἢ κινήσεις διαπονοῦσιν ἐνἣ τοῖς 

κι a ~ 
πρὸς AdBpakas ἢ yoyypous ἢ σκάρους ἀγῶσιν: 
a 5 ~ \ \ ΄- \ / 
ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα τὰ μὲν θυμοειδῆ τὸ φιλοκίνδυνον 
καὶ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον ἀσκεῖ τῶν μαχομένων, τὰ δὲ παν- 
οὔργα τὸ φροντιστικὸν καὶ συνετὸν τῶν ἐπιτιθε- 
/ \ \ / \ «ες / \ / 
μένων, τὰ δὲ ποδώκη TO ῥωμαλέον καὶ φιλόπονον 
τῶν διωκόντων. καὶ ταῦτα τὸ κυνηγεῖν καλὸν 
/ \ > c / > > > \ ” 7 / 
πεποίηκε: TO δ᾽ ἁλιεύειν am’ οὐδενὸς ἔνδοξον: οὐδέ 
1 Lacuna indicated by Leonicus. 


2 περαίας Aristotle (Historia Animal. 591 a 24): παρδίας. 
3 ἐν added by Hartman. 





“ Here follows a long lacuna not indicated in the mss., 
the contents of which cannot even be conjectured. 

» The milt is, of course, for the fertilization of the eggs, as 
Aristotimus should have learned from Aristotle (60... Historia 
Animal, vi. 13, 567 Ὁ 8 ff.) 

¢ On this type cf. also Aristotle, Historia Animal. viii. 2 


358 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 965-966 


9. aristotimus. ‘The court is open for the liti- 
gants ...% And there are some fish that waste 
their milt by pursuing the female while she is laying 
her eggs.” 

There is also a type of mullet called the grayfish ° 
which feeds on its own slime 7; and the octopus sits 
through the winter devouring himself, 


In fireless home and domicile forlorn, ¢ 


so lazy or insensible or gluttonous, or guilty of all of 
these charges, is he. So this also is the reason, again, 
why Plato’ in his Laws enjoined, or rather prayed, 
that his young men might not be seized by “a love 
for sea hunting.” For there is no exercise in bravery 
or training in skill or anything that contributes to 
strength or fleetness or agility when men endure 
toil in contests with bass or conger or parrot-fish ; 
whereas, in the chase on land, brave animals give 
play to the courageous and danger-loving qualities 
of those matched against them, crafty animals sharpen 
the wits and cunning of their attackers, while swift 
ones train the strength and perseverance of their 
pursuers. These are the qualities which have made 
hunting a noble sport, whereas there is nothing 


(591 a 23) and in Athenaeus, vii. 307 a, where variants of the 
name occur. ‘“ The same name was applied to a type of 
shark as well as to a type of mullet, an apt application in 
both instances *’ (Andrews). 
᾿ ἃ See Mair on Oppian, Hal. ii. 643 (cf. iii. 432 ff.). Pliny 
(Nat. Hist. ix. 128, 131) tells the same story of the purplefish. 
6 Hesiod, Works and Days, 524; cf. 978 F infra and the 
note; Mor. 1059 ©; Aelian, De Natura Animal. i. 27, xiv. 
26. See also Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. viii. 2 
(591 a 5); Mair on Oppian, Hal. ii. 244; Lucilius, frag. 
925 Warmington (L.C.L.). 
7 Laws, 823 pD-£. 


359 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(966) γε θεῶν τις ἠξίωσεν, ὦ ἑταῖρε, “᾿ yoyypoKtovos, 
[ δι Ὁ / {{ Ἂ ᾽}) , \ ce 
ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀπόλλων λυκοκτόνος, οὐδὲ “᾿ τριγλο- 
βόλος, ὥσπερ “" ἐλαφηβόλος ᾿᾿ ἡ [Άρτεμις, λέγε- 
σθαι. καὶ τί θαυμαστόν, ὅπου καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ σῦν 
prev’ καὶ ἔλαφον καὶ νὴ Δία δορκάδα καὶ λαγωὸν 
GN [ιν 7 ὍΝ , 7 \ \ a) 
ἑλεῖν κάλλιον ἢ πρίασθαι; θύννον δὲ καὶ κολίαν 
καὶ ἀμίαν σεμνότερόν ἐστιν ὀψωνεῖν ἢ αὐτὸν" 
Β ἁλιεύειν. τὸ γὰρ ἀγεννὲς καὶ ἀμήχανον ὅλως καὶ 
ἀπάνουργον αὐτῶν αἰσχρὰν καὶ ἀζηλον καὶ ἀν- 
ελεύθερον τὴν ἄγραν πεποίηκε. 
a « / 

10. Καθόλου δέ, ἐπεὶ δι᾿ ὧν ot φιλόσοφοι δει- 
κνύουσι TO” μετέχειν λόγου τὰ ζῷα, προθέσεις εἰσὶ 
καὶ παρασκευαὶ καὶ μνῆμαι καὶ πάθη καὶ τέκνων 
ἐπιμέλειαι καὶ χάριτες εὖ παθόντων καὶ μνησικα- 
κίαι πρὸς τὸ λυπῆσαν, ἔτι δ᾽ εὑρέσεις τῶν ἀναγ- 

Ξ a ~ / 
καίων, ἐμφάσεις ἀρετῆς, οἷον ἀνδρείας κοινωνίας 
ἐγκρατείας μεγαλοφροσύνης: σκοπῶμεν τὰ ἔναλα, 
εἰ τούτων ἐκεῖνα μὲν οὐδὲν 7 πού τι παντελῶς 
5 \ ” \ / , a LA 5A 
ἁμαυρὸν αἴθυγμα καὶ δυσθέατον ἐνιδεῖν μάλα μόλις 
τεκμαιρομένῳ δίδωσιν" ἐν δὲ τοῖς πεζοῖς καὶ γη- 

C γενέσι λαμπρὰ καὶ ἐναργῆ καὶ βέβαια παραδείγ- 
ματα τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάστου λαμβάνειν ἔστι καὶ 
θεᾶσθαι. 
1 μὲν Reiske : μόνον. 
2 κολίαν Andrews: κάραβον. 

3 αὐτὸν follows ἐστιν in the mss.; transferred here by van 
Herwerden. 

: ; "αἰσχρὰν R eiske : αἰσχρὸν. 

τὸ Reiske: τό τε. 


« For Apollo’s connexion with wolves see Aelian, De 
Natura Animal. x. 26; al. 

ὃ On Artemis, *‘ The Lady of Wild Beasts ” (iad, xxi. 
470), see Mnemosyne, 4th series, iv (1951), pp. 230 ff. 


360 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 966 


glorious about fishing. No, and there’s not a god, 
my friend, who has allowed himself to be called 
“ conger-killer,”’ as Apollo is “ wolf-slayer,” ? or “ sur- 
mullet-slayer,’ as Artemis? is “ deer-slaying.” ° 
And what is surprising in this when it’s a more 
glorious thing for a man to have caught a boar or 
a stag or, so help me, a gazelle or a hare than to 
have bought one? As for your tunny? and your 
mackerel and your bonito! They’re more honour- 
able to buy than to catch oneself. For their lack of 
spirit or of any kind of resource or cunning has made 
the sport dishonourable, unfashionable, and illiberal. 

10. In general, then, the evidence by which the 
philosophers demonstrate that beasts have their 
share of reason is their possession of purpose ὁ and 
preparation and memory and emotions and care for 
their young 7 and gratitude for benefits and hostility 
to what has hurt ‘them; to which may be added 
their ability to find what they need and their mani- 
festations of good qualities, such as courage 2 and 
sociability and continence and magnanimity. Let 
us ask ourselves if marine creatures exhibit any of 
these traits, or perhaps some suggestion of them, 
that is extremely faint and difficult to discern (the 
observer only coming at long last to the opinion that 
it may be descried) ; whereas in the case of terres- 
trial and earth-born animals it is easy to find remark- 
ably plain and unanswerable proofs of every one of 
the points I have mentioned. 


¢ This accusation is answered in 983 E-F infra. 

4 See 980 a infra. 

ἐ Of. 961 c supra. 

7 See the essay De Amore Prolis, Mor. 493 4 ff. passim. 

9 Plato, at least, held that, philosophically speaking, no 
beast is brave: Laches, 196 p; Republic, 430 8. 


361 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


= ΄- ΕΥ \ 

(966) Πρῶτον OUV ὅρα προθέσεις και παρασκευὰς 
ταύρων ἐπὶ μάχῃ κονιομένων καὶ κάπρων θηγόντων 
> / > / / ~ “ “Δ > / “ 
ὀδόντας: ἐλέφαντες δέ, τῆς ὕλης ἣν ὀρύττοντες ἢ 

/ > / > \ \ > / / 
κείροντες ἐσθίουσιν ἀμβλὺν τὸν ὀδόντα ποιούσης 
ἀποτριβόμενον, τῷ ἑτέρῳ πρὸς ταῦτα χρῶνται, τὸν 

> A 
δ᾽ ἕτερον ἔπακμον ἀεὶ καὶ ὀξὺν ἐπὶ τὰς ἀμύνας 
/ ¢ \ / 20 A / 
φυλάττουσιν. ὁ δὲ λέων ἀεὶ βαδίζει συνεστραμ- 
μένοις τοῖς ποσίν, ἐντὸς ἀποκρύπτων τοὺς ὄνυχας, 
σ \ / \ > \ > Ψ \ 
iva μὴ τριβόμενοι τὴν ἀκμὴν ἀπαμβλύνωσι μηδὲ 
D καταλείπωσιν εὐπορείαν τοῖς στιβεύουσιν: οὐ γὰρ 
ῥᾳδίως ὄνυχος εὑρίσκεται λεοντείου σημεῖον, ἀλλὰ 
μικροῖς" καὶ τυφλοῖς ἴχνεσιν ἐντυγχάνοντες ἀπο- 
πλανῶνται καὶ διαμαρτάνουσιν. ὁ δ᾽ ἰχνεύμων 
3 / ͵ ε >’ \ > / 
ἀκηκόατε δήπουθεν ws οὐθὲν ἀπολείπει θωρα- 
΄ ς / ~ 
κιζομένου πρὸς μάχην ὁπλίτου: τοσοῦτον ἰλύος 
/ - ΄ 
περιβάλλεται καὶ περιπήγνυσι τῷ σώματι χιτῶνα 
μέλλων ἐπιτίθεσθαι τῷ κροκοδείλῳ. τὰς δὲ χελι- 
δόνων πρὸ τῆς τεκνοποιίας παρασκευὰς ὁρῶμεν, ὡς 
> \ \ , ΑΞ ͵, , 
εὖ τὰ στερεὰ κάρφη προὔποβάλλονται δίκην θε- 
μελίων, εἶτα περιπλάττουσι τὰ κουφότερα: κἂν 
πηλοῦ τινος ἐχεκόλλου δεομένην αἴσθωνται τὴν 
νεοττιάν, λίμνης ἢ θαλάττης ἐν χρῷ παραπετόμεναι 
E ψαύουσι τοῖς πτίλοις ἐπιπολῆς, ὅσον νοτεραί, μὴ 
Ξ | συνεστραμμένους [τοῖς ποσίν] W. C. Η. from Mor. 520 F. 


2 μικροῖς) apavpots Kronenberg ; cf. Xen. Cyneg. vi. 21. 
3 vorepd, μὴ βαρέα Reiske. 








@ See Mair on Oppian, Cyn. ii. 57. 

» Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 1; Philo, 51 (p. 125); 
Homer, Jliad, xiii. 474 f. 

¢ Of. Pliny, Nat. Hist, viii. 8; viii. 71 of the rhinoceros ; 


362 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 966 


In the first place, then, behold the purposeful 
demonstrations and preparations of bulls 5 stirring 
up dust when intent on battle, and wild boars whet- 
ting their tusks. Since elephants’ tusks are blunted 
by wear when, by digging or chopping, they fell the 
trees that feed them, they use only one tusk for 
this purpose and keep the other always pointed and 
sharp for defence.“ Lions ὦ always walk with paws 
clenched and claws retracted so that these may not 
be dulled by wear at the point or leave a plain trail 
for trackers ; for it is not easy to find any trace of a 
lion’s claw ; on the contrary, any sign of a track that 
is found is so slight and obscure that hunters lose the 
trail and go astray. You have heard, I am sure, how 
the ichneumon ὁ girds itself for battle as thoroughly 
as any soldier putting on his armour, such a quantity 
of mud does it don and plaster about its body when 
it plans to attack the crocodile. Moreover, we see 
house-martins 7 preparing for procreation : how well 
they lay the solid twigs at the bottom to serve as a 
foundation, then mould the lighter bits about them ; 
and if they perceive that the nest needs a lump of 
mud to glue it together, they skim over a pond or 
lake, touching the water with only the tips of their 
feathers to make them moist, yet not heavy with 


Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 56; Antigonus, Hist. 
Mirab. 102. 

4 Cf. Mor. 520 τ: Aelian, De Natura Animal. ix. 30. 

¢ See Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 
(612 a 16 ff.), where, however, the animal’s opponent is the 
asp. (So also Aelian, De Natura Animal. iii. 22; v. 48; 
vi. 38.) But cf. 980 © infra; Aelian, De Natura ‘Animal. 
vill. 25; x. 47; Nicander, Theriaca, 201. 

7 Cf. Thompson on Aristotle, Historia ECU ix. 7 (612 b 
ΟΕ Pliny, Nat.” Hist. x: 92 ; Philo, 22 (p: 110) 3, Yale 
Class. Studies, xii. 139, on Anth. Pal. x. 4. 6. 


363 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(966) βαρεῖαι γενέσθαι τῇ ὑγρότητι, συλλαβοῦσαι δὲ 
κονιορτὸν οὕτως ἐξαλείφουσι' καὶ συνδέουσι τὰ χα- 
λῶντα καὶ διολισθάνοντα: τῷ δὲ σχήματι τοὔργον 
οὐ γωνιῶδες οὐδὲ πολύπλευρον, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμαλὸν ὡς 
ἔνεστι μάλιστα καὶ σφαιροειδὲς ἀποτελοῦσι: καὶ γὰρ 
μόνιμον καὶ χωρητικὸν τὸ τοιοῦτο καὶ τοῖς ἐπιβου- 
λεύουσι θηρίοις ἔξωθεν ἀντιλήψεις οὐ πάνυ δίδωσι. 

Ta 8 ἀράχνης. ἔργα, κοινὸν ἱστῶν γυναιξὶ καὶ 
θήρας σαγηνευταῖς ἀρχέτυπον, οὐ καθ᾽ ἕν ἄν τις 
θαυμάσειε" καὶ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ νήματος ἀκρίβεια καὶ τῆς 

Ε ὑφῆς τὸ μὴ διεχὲς μηδὲ στημονῶδες ἀλλὰ λείου 
συνέχειαν ὑμένος καὶ κόλλησιν ὑπό τινος ἀδήλως 
παραμεμιγμένης γλισχρότητος ἀπειργασμένον, ἥ τε 
βαφὴ τῆς χρόας ἐνάερον καὶ ἀχλυώδη ποιοῦσα τὴν 
ἐπιφάνειαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαθεῖν, αὐτή τε μάλιστα πάν- 
των ἡ τῆς μηχανῆς αὐτῆς ἡνιοχεία καὶ κυβέρνησις, 
ὅταν ἐνσχεθῇ τι τῶν ἁλωσίμων, ὥσπερ δεινοῦ 
σαγηνευτοῦ, ταχὺ συναιρεῖν εἰς ταὐτὸ" καὶ συνάγειν 
967 τὸ θήρατρον αἰσθανομένης καὶ φρονούσης, τῇ καθ᾽ 
ἡμέραν ὄψει καὶ θέᾳ τοῦ γινομένου πιστὸν ἔσχε 
τὸν λόγον. ἄλλως δ᾽ ἂν ἐδόκει μῦθος, ὥσπερ ἡμῖν 
ἐδόκει τὸ τῶν ἐν Λιβύῃ κοράκων, οἵ ποτοῦ δεόμενοι 
λίθους ἐμβάλλουσιν ἀναπληροῦντες καὶ ἀνάγοντες 
τὸ ὕδωρ, μέχρι ἂν ἐν ἐφικτῷ γένηται: εἶτα μέντοι 


4 ἐπαλείφουσι van Herw erden and some Mss. 
2 ταὐτὸ Reiske: ταὐτὰ or ταῦτα. 








ςς 


α θηρία may be “ serpents ᾿᾿ here, or any wild beast, per- 
haps, such as members of the cat family that relish a diet of 
birds. 

Ὁ For a collection of the loci communes dealing with 
swallow, bee, ant, spider, etc., see Dickermann in Trans. 
Am. Philol. Assoc. xlii (1911), pp. 123, ff. 


364 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 966-967 


dampness; then they scoop up dust and so smear 
over and bind together any parts that begin to sag 
or loosen. As for the shape of their work, it has no 
angles nor many sides, but is as smooth and circular 
as they can make it; such a shape is, in fact, both 
stable and capacious and provides no hold on the 
outside for scheming animals.? 

There is more than one reason? for admiring 
spiders’ © webs, the common model for both women’s 
looms and fowlers’@ nets; for there is the fineness of 
the thread and the evenness of the weaving, which has 
no disconnected threads and nothing like a warp, but 
is wrought with the even continuity of a thin mem- 
brane and a tenacity that comes from a viscous sub- 
stance inconspicuously worked in. ‘Then too, there 
is the blending of the colours that gives it an airy, 
misty look, the better to let it go undetected ; and 
most notable of all is the art itself, like a charioteer’s 
or a helmsman’s, with which the spinner handles her 
artifice. When a possible victim is entangled, she 
perceives it, and uses her wits, like a skilled handler 
of nets, to close the trap suddenly and make it tight. 
Since this is daily under our eyes and observation, 
my account is confirmed. Otherwise it would seem 
a mere fiction, as I formerly regarded the tale of the 
Libyan crows 5 which, when they are thirsty, throw 
stones into a pot to fill it and raise the water until 
it is within their reach ; but later when I saw a dog 


¢ Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 39 (623 a 7 ff.) ; Aelian, 
De Natura Animal. i. 21; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 79-84; 
Philo, 17 (p. 107); Philostratus, Jmagines, ii. 28. 

4 Commonly taken as “ fishermen,” but this seems un- 
likely here. 

¢ Cf. Anth. Pal. ix. 272; Aelian, De Natura Animal. ii. 
48; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 125; Avianus, fable 27. 


365 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ / > / ~ ~ A 
(967) Kuva θεασάμενος εν πλοίῳ, των ναυτῶν μὴ παρ- 
’ » » 5 ,ὔ > ~ > / 
ὄντων, els ἔλαιον ἀμφορέως ἀποδεοῦς ἐμβάλλοντα 
τῶν χαλίκων, ἐθαύμασα πῶς νοεῖ καὶ συνίησι τὴν 
γινομένην ἔκθλιψιν ὑπὸ τῶν βαρυτέρων τοῖς κου- 
φοτέροις ὑφισταμένων. 
σ \ \ \ ~ ~ ~ \ 
Ὅμοια δὲ καὶ τὰ TOV Κρητικῶν μελισσῶν Kat 
\ ~ > rr / ~ > ~ \ \ > - / 
B τὰ τῶν ἐν Κιλικίᾳ χηνῶν: ἐκεῖναι μὲν yap ἀνεμῶδές 
« / 
τι μέλλουσαι κάμπτειν ἀκρωτήριον ἑρματίζουσιν 
ἑαυτάς, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ παραφέρεσθαι, μικροῖς λιθι- 
δίοις: οἱ δὲ χῆνες τοὺς ἀετοὺς δεδοικότες, ὅταν 
ς / \ | ~ >] \ , / 
ὑπερβάλλωσι tov Ταῦρον, eis τὸ στόμα λίθον 
εὐμεγέθη λαμβάνουσιν, οἷον ἐπιστομίζοντες αὑτῶν 
\ ~ A / \ / a 
Kat χαλινοῦντες τὸ φιλόφωνον Kat λάλον, ὅπως 
λάθωσι σιωπῇ παρελθόντες. τῶν δὲ γεράνων καὶ 
τὸ περὶ τὴν πτῆσιν εὐδοκιμεῖ: πέτονται γάρ, ὅταν 7 
~ } 
πνεῦμα πολὺ Kal τραχὺς ἀήρ, οὐχ, ὥσπερ εὐδίας 
οὔσης, μετωπηδὸν ἢ κόλπῳ μηνοειδοῦς περιφε- 
ρείας, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς εἰς τρίγωνον συνάγουσαι σχί- 
C ζουσι τῇ κορυφῇ τὸ πνεῦμα περιρρέον, ὥστε μὴ 
διασπᾶσθαι τὴν τάξιν. ὅταν δὲ κατάρωσιν ἐπὶ 
γῆν, αἱ προφυλακὴν ἔχουσαι νυκτὸς ἐπὶ θατέρου 
7 > ~ \ ~ ~ > ¢ / \ / 
σκέλους ὀχοῦνται TO σῶμα, τῷ δ᾽ ἑτέρῳ ποδὲ λίθον 
περιλαβοῦσαι κρατοῦσι: συνέχει' γὰρ ὁ τῆς ἁφῆς 
τόνος ἐν τῷ μὴ καθεύδειν πολὺν χρόνον: ὅταν δ᾽ 
ἀνῶσιν, ἐκπεσὼν ὃ λίθος ταχὺ διήγειρε τὴν προ- 
εμένην: ὥστε μὴ πάνυ θαυμάζειν τοῦ “HpakdAédous, 


1 συνέχει Leonicus : συνεχὴς. 





« Cf. Mor. 510 a-s, which adds the detail that the geese’s 
366 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 967 


on board ship, since the sailors were away, putting 
pebbles into a half empty Jar of oil, | was amazed at 
its knowing that lighter substances are forced upward 
when the heavier settle to the bottom. 

Similar tales are told of Cretan bees and of geese 
in Cilicia.* When the bees are going to round some 
windy promontory, they ballast themselves with 
little stones ὃ so as not to be carried out to sea; 
while the geese, in fear of eagles, take a large stone 
in their beaks whenever they cross Mt. Taurus, as it 
were reining in and bridling their gaggling loquacity 
that they may pass over in silence unobserved. It is 
well known, too, how cranes © behave when they fly. 
Whenever there is a high wind and rough weather 
they do not fly, as on fine days, in line abreast or 
in a crescent-shaped curve ; but they form at once 
a compact triangle with the point cleaving the gale 
that streams past, so that there is no break in the 
formation. When they have descended to the ground, 
the sentinels that stand watch at night support them- 
selves on one foot and with the other grasp a stone 
and hold it firmly?; the tension of grasping this 
keeps them awake for a long time ; but when they 
do relax, the stone escapes and quickly rouses the 
culprit. So that I am not at all surprised that 


flight is by night. Contrast Aelian, De Natura Animal. ii. 1, 
Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 60, of cranes. 

> Aelian, De Natura Animal. v.13; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 
24, and Ernout, ad loc. ; Dio Chrysostom, xliv. 7. Cf. 979 B 
infra, of the sea hedgehog; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 69. 

¢ Of. 979 B infra; Aelian, De Natura Animal. ili. 13 ; 
Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 63, of geese; Mair on Oppian, Hal. i. 
624; Lucan, v. 713 ff. 

4 Cf.979 p infra ; Aelian, loc. cit.; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 59. 

ε Cf. the anecdote of Alexander in Ammianus Marcel- 
linus, xvi. 5. 4; of Aristotle in Diogenes Laertius, v. 16. 


367 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(967) εἰ τόξα μασχάλῃ ὑποθεὶς καὶ 


κραταιῷ περιβαλὼν βραχίονι, 


εὕδει πιέζων χειρὶ δεξιᾷ ξύλον" 


μηδ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τοῦ πρῶτον" ὑπονοήσαντος ὀστρέου 
μεμυκότος ἀνάπτυξιν ἐ ἐντυχόντα τοῖς ἐρωδιῶν σοφί- 
σμασιν: ὅταν γὰρ τὴν κόγχην καταπίῃ μεμυκυῖαν, 

D evoxAovpevos € ἐγκαρτερεῖ, μέχρι ἂν αἴσθηται μαλασ- 
σομένην καὶ χαλῶσαν ὑ ὑπὸ τῆς θερμότητος" τότε δ᾽ 
ἐκβαλὼν κεχηνυῖαν καὶ ἀνεσπασμένην ἐξεῖλε τὸ 
ἐδώδιμον. 

11. Τὰς δὲ μυρμήκων οἰκονομίας καὶ παρασκευὰς 
ἐκφράσαι μὲν ἀκριβῶς ἀμήχανον, ὑπερβῆναι δὲ 
παντελῶς ὀλίγωρον" οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω μικρὸν ἡ 
φύσις ἔχει μειζόνων καὶ καλλιόνων κάτοπτρον, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἐν σταγόνι καθαρᾷ πάσης ἔνεστιν 
ἀρετῆς ἔμφασις, “ἔνθ᾽ ἔνι μὲν φιλότης ᾿᾿ τὸ κοινω- 
νικόν, ἔνι δ᾽ ἀνδρείας εἰκὼν τὸ φιλόπονον" ἔνεστι δὲ 
πολλὰ μὲν ἐγκρατείας σπέρματα, πολλὰ δὲ φρονή- 

BE σεως καὶ δικαιοσύνης. ὁ μὲν οὖν Κλεάνθης ἔλεγε, 
καίπερ οὐ φάσκων μετέχειν λόγου τὰ ζῷα, τοιαύτῃ 
θεωρίᾳ παρατυχεῖν" μύρμηκας ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ μυρμη- 
κιὰν ἑτέραν μύρμηκα νεκρὸν φέροντας" ἀνιόντας 
οὖν ἐκ τῆς μυρμηκιᾶς ἐνίους οἷον ἐντυγχάνειν 
αὐτοῖς καὶ πάλιν κατέρχεσθαι: καὶ τοῦτο δὶς 7) τρὶς 


1 πρῶτον Benseler : πρώτου. 





@ Nauck, 7γασ. Graec. Frag. p. 919, Adespoton 416. 

Ὁ That is, by dropping it in hot water. 

¢ Of. Aelian, De Natura Animal. iii. 20; another pro- 
cedure is described in v. 35. See also Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 
115, of the shoveller duck ; Philo, 31 (p. 116); Antigonus, 
Hist. Mirah. 41; al. 4 Homer, /liad, xiv. 216. 


368 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 967 


Heracles tucked his bow under his arm: 


Embracing it with mighty arm he sleeps, 
Keeping his right hand gripped about the club. 


Nor, again, am I surprised at the man who first 
guessed how to open an oyster ὃ when I read of the 
ingenuity of herons. For they swallow a closed 
mussel and endure the discomfort until they know 
that it has been softened and relaxed by their internal 
heat ; then they disgorge it wide open and unfolded 
and extract the meat.°¢ 

11. It is impossible to relate in full detail all 
the methods of production and storage practised by 
ants, but it would be careless to omit them entirely. 
Nature has, in fact, nowhere else so small a mirror of 
greater and nobler enterprises. Just as you may see 
greater things reflected in a drop of clear water, so 
among ants there exists the delineation of every 


virtue. 
Love and affection are found, ὦ 


namely their social life. You may see, too, the re- 
flection of courage in their persistence in hard labour.? 
There are many seeds of temperance and many of 
prudence and justice. Now Cleanthes/ even though 
he declared that animals are not endowed with 
reason, says that he witnessed the following spectacle: 
some ants came to a strange anthill carrying a dead 
ant. Other ants then emerged from the hill and 
seemed, as it were, to hold converse with the first 
party and then went back again. This happened 


¢ Cf. Plato, Laches, 192 5 ff.: we have here the four 
Platonic virtues, with Love added. 

¥ Von Arnim, S.V.F. i, p. 116; frag. 5153; cf. Aelian, De 
Natura Animal, vi. 50. 


369 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(967) γενέσθαι" τέλος δὲ τοὺς μὲν κάτωθεν ἀνενεγκεῖν 
ὥσπερ λύτρα τοῦ νεκροῦ σκώληκα, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκεῖνον 
F ἀραμένους ἀποδόντας δὲ τὸν νεκρὸν οἴχεσθαι. 

Τῶν δὲ πᾶσιν ἐμφανῶν ἣ τε περὶ τὰς ἀπαντήσεις 

ἐστὶν εὐγνωμοσύνη, τῶν μηδὲν φερόντων τοῖς 
φέρουσιν ἐξισταμένων ὁδοῦ καὶ παρελθεῖν διδόντων" 

αἵ τε τῶν δυσφόρων καὶ δυσπαρακομίστων δια- 
βρώσεις καὶ διαιρέσεις, ὅπως εὐβάστακτα πλείοσι 
γένηται. τὰς δὲ τῶν σπερμάτων' διαθέσεις καὶ 
διαψύξεις ἐκτὸς ὑετοῦ ποιεῖται σημεῖον ὁ “Apatos: 


7 κοίλης μύρμηκες ὀχῆς ἐξ ὦεα πάντα 


θᾶσσον ἀνηνέγκαντο" 


, δ᾿ ὁ fETE SIN. 3 , > Stic, Pr 929 € 8 
Kal τινες οὐκ “᾿ wa’ γράφουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ “ ἤια ᾿᾿" ὡς 


τοὺς ἀποκειμένους καρπούς, ὅταν εὐρῶτα συνά- 
908 γοντας αἴσθωνται καὶ φοβηθῶσι φθορὰν καὶ σῆψιν, 
ἀναφερόντων. ὑπερβάλλει δὲ πᾶσαν ἐπίνοιαν συνέ- 
σεως ἡ τοῦ πυροῦ τῆς βλαστήσεως προκατάληψις" 
οὐ γὰρ δὴ παραμένει Enpos οὐδ᾽ ἄσηπτος ἀλλὰ 
διαχεῖται καὶ γαλακτοῦται μεταβάλλων εἰς τὸ 
φύειν" ἵν᾿ οὖν μὴ γενόμενος σπέρμα τὴν σιτίου 
χρείαν διαφθείρῃ, παραμένῃ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐδώδιμος, 
ἐξεσθίουσι τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀφ᾽ ἧς τὸν βλαστὸν ὁ πυρὸς 
ἀφίησιν. 
1 σπερμάτων] Mss. have also κυμάτων and κερμάτων (κυημά- 
των Bernardakis). 
2 ma Leopardi: €a. 
3 ὡς added by Wyttenbach. 


« Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. ii. 25. 
» Phaenomena, 956 ; cf. Vergil, Georgies, i. 379 f. ; Theo- 
phrastus, De Signis, 22. 
© Not οἵα, | ia: ** What the ants reall t ij 
Not ota, but eta: vat the ants really carry out in 
370 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 967-968 


two or three times until at last they brought up a 
grub to serve as the dead ant’s ransom, whereupon 
the first party picked up the grub, handed over the 
corpse, and departed. 

A matter obvious to everyone is the consideration 
ants show when they meet: those that bear no load 
always give way to those who have one and let them 
pass.“ Obvious also is the manner in which they 
gnaw through and dismember things that are difficult 
to carry or to convey past an obstacle, in order that 
they may make easy loads for several. And Aratus ὃ 
takes it to be a sign of rainy weather when they spread 
out their eggs and cool them in the open : 


When from their hollow nest the ants in haste 
Bring up their eggs ; 


and some do not write “ eggs’ here, but “ provisions,”’ ¢ 
in the sense of stored grain which, when they notice 
that it is growing mildewed and fear that it may 
decay and spoil, they bring up to the surface. But 
what goes beyond any other conception of their 
intelligence is their anticipation of the germination 
of wheat. You know, of course, that wheat does not 
remain permanently dry and stable, but expands 
and lactifies in the process of germination. In order, 
then, to keep it from running to seed and losing its 
value as food, and to keep it permanently edible, 
the ants eat out the germ from which springs the 
new shoot of wheat.4@ 


Aratus and Vergil is their pupas, but these are commonly 

called ‘ eggs’ to this day ” (Platt, Class. Quart. v, p. 255). 

The two readings in this passage seem to show that Plutarch 

had at hand an edition with a commentary; cf. also 976 F 

infra, on the interpretation of Archilochus, and Mor. 22 8, 
¢ Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 109, and Ernout ad loc. 


371 


(968) 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Τοὺς δὲ τὰς μυρμηκιὰς αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῷ καταμαθεῖν 
ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀνατομῆς παρατηροῦντας' οὐκ ἀποδέ- 
χομαι' λέγουσι δ᾽ οὖν οὐκ εὐθεῖαν εἶναι τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς 
ὀπῆς" κάθοδον οὐδ᾽ εὔπορον ἄλλῳ θηρίῳ διεξελθεῖν, 
ἀλλὰ “καμπαῖς καὶ στρεβλότησι ᾿κεκλασμένας ὑπο- 
πορεύσεις καὶ ἀνατρήσεις ἐχούσαις εἰς τρεῖς κοιλό- 
TnTas ἀποτελευτῶσαν, ὧν τὴν μὲν ἐνδιαίτημα 
κοινὸν αὐτοῖς εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἐδωδίμων ταμεῖον, 
εἰς δὲ τὴν τρίτην ἀποτίθεσθαι τοὺς θνήσκοντας. 

15. Οἶμαι δὲ μὴ ἄκαιρος ὑμῖν φανεῖσθαι. τοῖς 
μύρμηξιν ἐπεισάγων τοὺς ἐλέφαντας, ἃ ἵνα τοῦ νοῦ 
τὴν ν φύσιν ἔν τε τοῖς μικροτάτοις ἅμα καὶ μεγίστοις 
σώμασι κατανοήσωμεν, μήτε τούτοις ἐναφανιζο- 
μένην μήτ᾽ ἐκείνοις ἐνδέουσαν. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι 
θαυμάζουσι τοῦ ἐλέφαντος ὅσα μανθάνων καὶ διδα- 
σκόμενος ἐν θεάτροις ἐπιδείκνυται σχημάτων εἰδὴ 
καὶ μεταβολάς, ὧν οὐδ᾽ ἀνθρωπίναις μελέταις τὸ 
ποικίλον καὶ περιττὸν ἐν μνήμῃ καὶ καθέξει" γενέ- 
σθαι πάνυ ῥᾷδιόν ἐστιν: ἐγὼ δὲ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ad’ 
αὑτοῦ καὶ ἀδιδάκτοις τοῦ θηρίου πάθεσι καὶ κινή- 
μασιν, ὥσπερ ἀκράτοις καὶ ἀπαραχύτοις, ἐμφαι- 
νομένην ὁρῶ τὴν σύνεσιν. 


Ἔν “Ῥώμῃ μὲν γὰρ οὐ πάλαι πολλῶν προδιδα- 
1 παρατηροῦντας Post: πληροῦντας. 
2 ὀπῆς Meziriacus: ὅλης. 
3 καὶ καθέξει] καθεξῆς van Herwerden. 


2 The intricate galleries of anthills were used for purposes 
of literary comparisons by the ancients: see the fragment 
of Pherecrates in Mor. 1142 a and Aristophanes, Thes- 
mophoriazusae, 100 (on Timotheiis and Agathon respec- 
tively). 

» Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 43 divides into men’s 
apartments, women’s apartments, and storerooms ; see also 


372 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 968 


I do not approve of those who, to make a complete 
study of anthills, inspect them, as it were, anatomi- 
cally. But, be that as it may, they report that the 
passage leading downward from the opening is not 
at all straight or easy for any other creature to tra- 
verse ; it passes through turns and twists ® with 
branching tunnels and connecting galleries and ter- 
minates in three hollow cavities. One of these is 
their common dwelling-place, another serves as 
storeroom for provisions, while in the third they 
deposit the dying.? 

12. I don’t suppose that you will think it out of 
order if 1 introduce elephants directly on top of ants 
in order that we may concurrently scrutinize the 
nature of understanding in both the smallest and 
the largest of creatures, for it is neither suppressed 
in the latter nor deficient in the former. Let others, 
then, be astonished that elephants learn, or are 
taught, to exhibit in the theatre all the many postures 
and variations of movement that they do,° these 
being so varied and so complicated to memorize and 
retain that they are not at all easy even for human 
artists. For my part, I find the beast’s understanding 
better manifested in his own spontaneous and un- 
instructed feelings and movements, in a pure, as it 
were, and undiluted state. 

Well, not very long ago at Rome,? where a large 
Philo, 42 (p. 120), and Boulenger, Animal Mysteries, pp. 
128 ff. for a modern account. On the social life of ants (and 
animals) as contrasted with that of humans see Dio Chry- 
sostom, xl. 32, 40 f.; xlviii. 16. ¢ Cf. Mor. 98 &. 

@ Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 6, which shows that Plutarch 
is drawing on literature, not personal observation ; cf. also 
Aelian, De Natura Animal. ii. 11, for the elaborateness of 


the manceuvres; Philostratus, Vita Apoll. ii. 13; Philo, 
54 (p. 126); see also 992 5 infra. 


373 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


, , \ “ 1 , \ 
(968) σκομένων στάσεις τινὰς ἵστασθαι παραβόλους καὶ 
κινήσεις δυσεξελίκτους ἀνακυκλεῖν, εἷς ὁ δυσμαθέ- 
στατος ἀκούων κακῶς ἑκάστοτε καὶ κολαζόμενος 

/ » \ ᾿] \ 3 > « ~ \ \ 
πολλάκις ὥφθη νυκτὸς αὐτὸς ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς τὴν 

Ὁ σελήνην ἀναταττόμενος τὰ μαθήματα καὶ μελετῶν. 

ΕΒ ὃ ᾿ > / / αὐ «ς - 

ν δὲ Συρίᾳ πρότερον “Ayvwv ἱστορεῖ, τρεφο- 
μένου κατ᾽ οἰκίαν ἐλέφαντος, τὸν ἐπιστάτην λαμ- 
βάνοντα κριθῶν μέτρον ὑφαιρεῖν καὶ χρεωκοπεῖν 
μέρος ἥμισυ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν: ἐπεὶ δέ, τοῦ δεσπότου 
παρόντος ποτὲ καὶ θεωμένου, πᾶν τὸ μέτρον κατή- 

> / \ / \ / 

pacev, ἐμβλέψαντα καὶ διαγαγόντα τὴν προβοσκίδα 
τῶν κριθῶν ἀποδιαστῆσαι καὶ διαχωρίσαι τὸ μέρος, 
ὡς ἐνῆν λογιώτατα κατειπόντα τοῦ ἐπιστάτου τὴν 
3 / » 4 a “- / \ ~ > 
ἀδικίαν: ἄλλον δέ, ταῖς κριθαῖς λίθους Kat γῆν εἰς 
τὸ μέτρον τοῦ ἐπιστάτου καταμιγνύοντος, ἐψο- 
μένων κρεῶν, Opagdpevov τῆς τέφρας ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς 

E τὴν χύτραν. ὁ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν παιδαρίων προπηλακι- 
σθεὶς ἐν Ῥώμῃ τοῖς γραφείοις τὴν προβοσκίδα 

/ a“ / / > / > / 

κεντούντων ὃν συνέλαβε μετέωρον ἐξάρας ἐπίδοξος 
ἦν ἀποτυμπανιεῖν"- κραυγῆς δὲ τῶν παρόντων γενο- 
μένης, ἀτρέμα πρὸς τὴν γῆν πάλιν ἀπηρείσατο καὶ 
παρῆλθεν, ἀρκοῦσαν ἡγούμενος δίκην τῷ τηλικούτῳ 
φοβηθῆναι. 

Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀγρίων καὶ αὐτονόμων ἄλλα τε 
θαυμάσια καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς διαβάσεις τῶν ποταμῶν 
ἱστοροῦσι: προδιαβαίνει γὰρ ἐπιδοὺς αὑτὸν ὁ νεώ- 

1 ἵστασθαι Casaubon: κτᾶσθαι. 


* ἀποτυμπανιεῖν W. C. H. from Mor. 170 a: ἀποτυμπανί- 
σειν. 


« Of Tarsus, pupil of Carneades. 
» Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 52. 


374 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 968 


number of elephants were being trained to assume 
dangerous stances and wheel about in complicated 
patterns, one of them, who was the slowest to learn 
and was always being scolded and often punished, 
was seen at night, alone by himself in the moonlight, 
voluntarily rehearsing his lessons and_ practising 
them. 

Formerly in Syria, Hagnon ¢ tells us, an elephant 
was brought up in its master’s house and every day 
the keeper, when he received a measure of barley, 
would filch away and appropriate half of it; but 
on one occasion, when the master was present and 
watching, the keeper poured out the whole measure. 
The elephant gave a look, raised its trunk, and made 
two piles of the barley, setting aside half of it and 
thus revealing as eloquently as could be the dis- 
honesty of its keeper. And another elephant, whose 
keeper used to mix stones and dirt in its barley 
ration, when the keeper’s meat was cooking, scooped 
up some ashes and threw them into the pot.? And 
another in Rome, being tormented by little boys 
who pricked its proboscis with their writing styluses, 
grabbed one of them and raised him into the air as 
if to dash him to death; but when the spectators 
cried out, it gently set the child down on the ground 
again and passed along, thinking it sufficient punish- 
ment for one so young to have been frightened. 

Concerning wild elephants who are self-governing 
they tell many wonderful tales, particularly the one 
about the fording of rivers®: the youngest and 
smallest volunteers his services to go first into the 


¢ Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 11, gives a different account ;_ still 
different is Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 15, and ef. 

Philostratus, Vita Apoll. ii. 15. 
375 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


\ / « > « ~ > ~ 
(968) τατος και PREPOTOTASE ol δ᾽ ἑστῶτες ἀποθεωροῦσιν 
ὡς, ἂν ἐκεῖνος ὑπεραίρῃ τῷ μεγέθει τὸ ῥεῦμα, 
πολλὴν τοῖς μείζοσι πρὸς τὸ θαρρεῖν περιουσίαν τῆς 
F ἀσφαλείας οὖσαν. 

3 ~ ~ ’ὔ \ , ~ 
Ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γεγονὼς οὐ δοκῶ μοι 
παρήσειν δι᾿ ὁμοιότητα τὸ τῆς ἀλώπεκος. οἱ μὲν 
οὖν μυθολόγοι τῷ Δευκαλίωνί φασι περιστερὰν ἐκ 
τῆς λάρνακος ἀφιεμένην δήλωμα γενέσθαι χειμῶνος 
μὲν εἴσω πάλιν ἐνδυομένην, εὐδίας δ᾽ ἀποπτᾶσαν" 
οἱ δὲ Θρᾷκες ἔτι νῦν, ὅταν παγέντα διαβαίνειν 
ποταμὸν ἐπιχειρῶσιν, ἀλώπεκα ποιοῦνται γνώμονα 
969 τῆς τοῦ πάγου στερρότητος" ἡσυχῆ γὰρ ὑπάγουσα 
παραβάλλει τὸ οὖς: κἂν μὲν αἴσθηται ψόφῳ τοῦ 
ῥεύματος ἐγγὺς ὑποφερομένου, τεκμαιρομένη μὴ 
/ \ 7 \ ΄ > \ \ \ 
γεγονέναι διὰ βάθους τὴν πῆξιν ἀλλὰ λεπτὴν Kal 
ἀβέβαιον ἵσταται, κἂν ἐᾷ τις, ἐπανέρχεται: τῷ δὲ 

\ A ~ ~ \ ~ \ / 
μὴ ψοφεῖν θαρροῦσα διῆλθε. καὶ τοῦτο μὴ λέγωμεν 

, / » 5 / 5 7 » > / 
αἰσθήσεως ἄλογον ἀκρίβειαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ αἰσθήσεως 
\ Ld ce \ ~ A \ \ / 
συλλογισμὸν ὅτι “᾿ τὸ ψοφοῦν κινεῖται, TO δὲ κινού- 
μενον οὐ πέπηγε, τὸ δὲ μὴ πεπηγὸς ὑγρόν ἐστι, τὸ 
» ς \ τ / ,Ψ' ς \ / \ 
δ᾽ ὑγρὸν ἐνδίδωσιν. οἱ δὲ διαλεκτικοί φασι τὸν 
κύνα τῷ διὰ πλειόνων διεζευγμένῳ χρώμενον ἐν 
~ 7 3 - / \ 
B ταῖς πολυσχιδέσιν ἀτραποῖς συλλογίζεσθαι πρὸς 
ἑαυτόν, “᾿ ἤτοι τήνδε τὸ θηρίον ὥρμηκεν ἢ τήνδε ἢ 





The authorities on Deucalion’s Flood are assembled by 
Fister on Apollodorus, i. 7. 2 (L.C.L.), and more completely 
in his Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, i, pp. 146 ff. Plutarch 
is the only Greek author to add the Semitic dove story, 
though Lucian (De Dea Syria, 12 ff.) was to add to the other 
major contaminations. 

» Cf. 949 p supra and the note. 


376 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 968-969 


stream. The others wait on the bank and observe 
the result, for if his back remains above water, those 
that are larger than he will have a wide margin of 
safety to give them confidence. 

13. At this point in my discourse, I imagine that I 
shall do well not to omit the case of the fox, since it 
is so similar. Now the story-books 7 tell us that when 
Deucalion released a dove from the ark, as long as 
she returned, it was a certain sign that the storm was 
still raging ; but as soon as she flew away, it was a 
harbinger of fair weather. So even to this day the 
Thracians,? whenever they propose crossing a frozen 
river, make use of a fox as an indicator of the solidity 
of the ice. The fox moves ahead slowly and lays 
her ear to the ice ; if she perceives by the sound that 
the stream is running close underneath, judging that 
the frozen part has no great depth, but is only thin 
and insecure, she stands stock still and, if she is per- 
mitted, returns to the shore ; but if she is reassured 
by the absence of noise, she crosses over. And let 
us not declare that this is a nicety of perception un- 
aided by reason; it is, rather, a syllogistic conclusion 
developed from the evidence of perception : “ What 
makes noise must be in motion ; what is in motion is 
not frozen; what is not frozen is liquid; what is 
liquid gives way.” So logicians © assert that a dog, 
at a point where many paths split off, makes use 
of a multiple disjunctive 7 argument and reasons 
with himself: “‘ Either the wild beast has taken this 


¢ Specifically Chrysippus (cf. von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 
726 f.). Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, i. 
69 (the whole passage i. 62-72 is worth reading); Aelian, 
De Natura Animal, vi. 59; Philo, 45 (p. 122). 

4 For the form of the syllogism see Diogenes Laertius, 
vil. 81. 


317 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(969) TIVE" ἀλλὰ μὴν οὔτε τήνδε οὔτε τήνδε" τὴν λοιπὴν 
ἄρα᾽᾽" τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως οὐδὲν ἢ τὴν πρόσληψιν 
διδούσης, τοῦ δὲ λόγου τὰ λήμματα καὶ τὸ συμ- 
πέρασμα τοῖς λήμμασιν ἐπιφέροντος. οὐ μὴν δεῖταί 
γε τοιαύτης μαρτυρίας ὃ κύων" ψευδὴς “γάρ ἐστι 
καὶ κίβδηλος" ἡ γὰρ αἴσθησις αὐτὴ τοῖς ἴχνεσι καὶ 
τοῖς pevpact” τοῦ θηρίου τὴν φυγὴν ἐπιδείκνυσι, 
χαίρειν λέγουσα διεζευγμένοις ἀξιώμασι καὶ συμ- 
πεπλεγμένοις. Ov ἄλλων δὲ πολλῶν ἔργων καὶ 
παθῶν καὶ καθηκόντων οὔτ᾽ ὀσφραντῶν οὐθ᾽ ὁρα- 

C τῶν ἀλλὰ διανοίᾳ καὶ λόγῳ μόνον πρακτῶν καὶ 
θεατῶν ὄντων κατιδεῖν ἔστι τὴν κυνὸς φύσιν" οὗ 
τὰς μὲν ἐν ἄγραις ἐγκρατείας καὶ πειθαρχίας καὶ 
ἀγχινοίας γελοῖος ἔσομαι λέγων πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοὺς 
ὁρῶντας αὐτὰ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν καὶ μεταχειριζομένους. 

Κάλβου δὲ" τοῦ Ῥωμαίου σφαγέντος ἐν τοῖς ἐμ- 
φυλίοις πολέμοις οὐδεὶς ἐδυνήθη τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀπο- 
τεμεῖν πρότερον πρὶν ἢ τὸν κύνα τὸν φυλάττοντα 
καὶ προμαχόμενον. αὐτοῦ κατακεντῆσαι περιστάν- 
τας. Ilvppos δ᾽ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁδεύων ἐνέτυχε κυνὶ 
φρουροῦντι σῶμα “πεφονευμένου, καὶ πυθόμενος 
τρίτην ἡμέραν ἐκείνην ἄσιτον παραμένειν καὶ μὴ 

Ὁ ἀπολείπειν' τὸν μὲν νεκρὸν ἐκέλευσε θάψαι, τὸν δὲ 
κύνα μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κομίζειν ἐπιμελομένους. ὀλίγαις 


1 ἢ τήνδε added by early editors. 
2 ῥεύμασι] πνεύμασι Emperius. 
3 Κάλβου δὲ Diibner: οὐδὲ. 


4 ἀπολείπειν Bernardakis : ἀπολιπεῖν. 








¢ Cf. Shorey on Plato, Republic, 427 πὶ (L.C.L., vol. I, 
Ὁ: 347, note δὴ. 

ὃ For the philosophic dog see Plato, op. cit. 376 B; the 
scholia of Olympiodorus add that Socrates’ famous oath * by 


378 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 969 


path, or this, or this. But surely it has not taken 
this, or this. Then it must have gone by the remain- 
ing road.” Perception here affords nothing but the 
minor premiss, while the force of reason gives 
the major premisses and adds the conclusion to the 
premisses. A dog, however, does not need such a 
testimonial, which is both false and fraudulent ; for 
it is perception itself, by means of track and spoor,? 
which indicates the way the creature fled; it does 
not bother with disjunctive and copulative proposi- 
tions. The dog’s true capacity may be discerned 
from many other acts and reactions and the perfor- 
mance of duties, which are neither to be smelled out 
nor seen by the eye, but can be carried out or per- 
ceived only by the use of intelligence and reason.? 
I should only make myself ridiculous if I described 
the dog’s self-control and obedience and sagacity on 
hunting parties to you who see and handle these 
matters every day. 

There was a Roman named Calvus © slain in the 
Civil Wars, but no one was able to cut off his head 
until they encircled and stabbed to death the dog 
who guarded his master and defended him. And 
King Pyrrhus? on a journey chanced upon a dog 
guarding the body of a murdered man; in answer 
to his questions he was told that the dog had re- 
mained there without eating for three days and 
refused to leave. Pyrrhus gave orders for the corpse 
to be buried and the dog cared for and brought along 


the dog’ was symbolic of the creature’s rational nature. 
See also Sinclair, Class. Rev. xlii (1948), p. 61; the parallel 
passages are collected by J. E. B. Mayor, Class. Rev. xii 
(1898), pp. 93 ff. 

© See Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 10. 

@ Cf. Aelian, loc. cit.; Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 142. 


379 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


5 “ ¢ / ᾽ “4 Ss ~ ~ 
(969) ὃ VOTEPOV Ἴμεραις ἐξέτασις YY τῶν OTPATLWTWT 
Kal πάροδος καθημένου τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ παρῆν ὁ 
κύων ἡσυχίαν ἔχων: ἐπεὶ δὲ τοὺς φονέας τοῦ δε- 
σπότου παριόντας εἶδεν ἐξέδραμε μετὰ φωνῆς καὶ 
θυμοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ καθυλάκτει πολλάκις μετα- 
“ 
στρεφόμενος εἰς τὸν Πύρρον, ὥστε μὴ μόνον ἐκεί- 
vw δι’ ὑποψίας ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς παροῦσι τοὺς 
ἀνθρώπους γενέσθαι: διὸ συλληφθέντες εὐθὺς καὶ 
ἀνακρινόμενοι, μικρῶν τινων τεκμηρίων ἔξωθεν 
προσγενομένων, ὁμολογήσαντες τὸν φόνον ἐκο- 
λάσθησαν. 
E Ταὐτὰ' δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἡσιόδου κύνα τοῦ σοφοῦ 
΄σ Vs \ / > / ~ 
δρᾶσαι λέγουσι, τοὺς VaviKropos ἐξελέγξαντα τοῦ 
, Ξ ey? τ ee ͵ 5. ἢ» γὴ 
Ναυπακτίου παῖδας, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ὁ ᾿Ησίοδος ἀπέθανεν. 
ὃ δ᾽ οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν αὐτοὶ σχολάζον- 
τες ᾿Αθήνησιν ἐναργέστερόν ἐστι τῶν εἰρημένων" 
παραρρυεὶς γὰρ ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν νεὼν τοῦ ᾿Ασ- 
κληπιοῦ τὰ εὔογκα τῶν ἀργυρῶν καὶ χρυσῶν ἔλαβεν 
3 / \ / / ς ~ ¢ 
ἀναθημάτων Kat λεληθέναι νομίζων ὑπεξῆλθεν: ὁ 
δὲ φρουρὸς κύων, ὄνομα ζάππαρος, ἐπεὶ μηδεὶς 
ὑλακτοῦντι τῶν ζακόρων ὑπήκουσεν αὐτῷ, φεύγοντα 
τὸν ἱερόσυλον ἐπεδίωκε: καὶ πρῶτον μὲν βαλλόμε- 
/ dre / > \ 
F vos λίθοις οὐκ ἀπέστη: γενομένης δ᾽ ἡμέρας, ἐγγὺς 
᾽ \ > > > > > ~ / σ 
οὐ προσιὼν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῦ παραφυλάττων εἵ- 
\ \ / > > / > 
πετο καὶ τροφὴν προβάλλοντος οὐκ ἐλάμβανεν: ava- 
παυομένῳ δὲ παρενυκτέρευε καὶ βαδίζοντος πάλιν 
ἀναστὰς ἐπηκολούθει, τοὺς. δ᾽ ἀπαντῶντας ὁδοιπό- 


1 ταὐτὰ Reiske: ταῦτα. 





a ΟΥ̓. 984 νυ infra. A different account, omitting the dog, 
will be found in Mor. 162 c-r (where see Wyttenbach’s note) ; 


380 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 969 


in his train. A few days later there was an inspection 
of the soldiers, who marched in front of the king 
seated on his throne, while the dog lay quietly by his 
side. But when it saw its master’s murderers filing 
past, it rushed at them with furious barking and, as it 
voiced its accusation, turned to look at the king so 
that not only he, but everyone present, became sus- 
picious of the men. They were at once arrested and 
when put to the question, with the help of some 
bits of external evidence as well, they confessed the 
murder and were punished. 

The same thing is said to have been done by 
the poet Hesiod’s “ dog, which convicted the sons of 
Ganyctor the Naupactian, by whom Hesiod had been 
murdered. Buta matter which came to the attention 
of our fathers when they were studying at Athens 
is even plainer than anything so far mentioned. A 
certain fellow slipped into the temple of Asclepius,? 
took such gold and silver offerings as were not bulky, 
and made his escape, thinking that he had not been 
detected. But the watchdog, whose name was 
Capparus, when none of the sacristans responded to 
its barking, pursued the escaping temple-thief. First 
the man threw stones at it, but could not drive it 
away. When day dawned, the dog did not approach 
close, but followed the man, always keeping him in 
sight, and refused the food he offered. When he 
stopped to rest, the dog passed the night on guard ; 
when he struck out again, the dog got up and 
kept following, fawning on the other people it met 
cf. also Pollux, Onomasticon, v. 42 and Gabathiiler on Anth. 
Pal. vii. 55 (Hellenistische Epigramme auf Dichter, p. 31). 

ὃ The same story in Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 13, 


indicates a literary source. See now E. R. Dodds, The Greeks 
and the Irrational, p. 114 and n. 65. 


381 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(969) ρους ἔσαινεν, ἐκείνῳ δ᾽ ἐφυλάκτει καὶ προσέκειτο. 
ταῦτα δ᾽ οἱ διώκοντες πυνθανόμενοι παρὰ τῶν 
ἀπαντώντων ἅμα καὶ τὸ χρῶμα φραζόντων καὶ τὸ 
μέγεθος τοῦ κυνὸς προθυμότερον ἐχρήσαντο τῇ 
διώξει, καὶ καταλαβόντες τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀνήγαγον 

970 ἀπὸ Κρομμυῶνος. ὁ δὲ κύων ἀναστρέψας προηγεῖτο 
΄- « ~ 
γαῦρος Kal περιχαρής, οἷον ἑαυτοῦ ποιούμενος ay- 
ραν καὶ θήραμα τὸν ἱερόσυλον. ἐψηφίσαντο δὴ 
σῖτον αὐτῷ δημοσίᾳ μετρεῖσθαι καὶ παρεγγυᾶσθαι 
τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν εἰς ἀεὶ τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, ἀπομιμησά- 
μενοι τὸ πρὸς τὸν ἡμίονον φιλανθρώπευμα τῶν 
παλαιῶν ᾿Αθηναίων. τὸν γὰρ ἑκατόμπεδον νεὼν 
Περικλέους ἐν ἀκροπόλει κατασκευάζοντος, ὡς 
> / / / ~ / 77a / 
εἰκός, λίθοι προσήγοντο πολλοῖς ζεύγεσι καθ᾽ ἡμέ- 
~ +e / 
ραν: τῶν οὖν συνειργασμένων μὲν προθύμως ἤδη 
δὲ διὰ γῆρας ἀφειμένων ὀρέων εἷς κατερχόμενος εἰς 
A / 
Kepapecxov καὶ tots ἀνάγουσι ζεύγεσι τοὺς λίθους 
ὑπαντῶν ἀεὶ συνανέστρεφε καὶ συμπαρετρόχαζεν, 
οἷον ἐγκελευόμενος καὶ παρορμῶν: διὸ θαυμάσας 
αὐτοῦ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν ὁ δῆμος ἐκέλευσε δημοσίᾳ 
“-“- ὔ 
τρέφεσθαι, καθάπερ ἀθλητῇ σίτησιν ὑπὸ γήρως 
ἀπειρηκότι ψηφισάμενος. 
£ « A > \ A \ 
14. Διὸ τοὺς λέγοντας, ws ἡμῖν οὐδὲν προς τὰ 
~ / / > « / > / ΝΜ ~ 2 awe 
ζῷα δίκαιόν ἐστι, ῥητέον εὖ λέγειν ἄχρι τῶν ἐνάλων 
δι / Μ \ > ~ ~ \ / 
καὶ βυθίων: ἄμικτα yap ἐκεῖνα κομιδῇ πρὸς χάριν 


“ Better known as the Parthenon ; cf. Mor. 349 ἢ, Life of 
Pericles, xiii. 7 (159 Ἐ). 

»o Cf. Life ey Cato Maior, v. 3 (339 a-B). Aelian, De 
Natura Animal. vi. 49, agrees in the main with Plutarch’s 
account; Aristotle, Histori ia Animal, vi. 24 (577 B 34), says 
merely that a public decree was passed forbidding bakers to 
drive the creature away from their trays. He adds that the 


382 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 969-970 


on the road and barking at the man and sticking to 
his heels. When those who were investigating the 
robbery learned this from men who had encountered 
the pair and were told the colour and size of the dog, 
they pursued all the more vigorously and overtook 
the man and brought him back from Crommyon. On 
the return the dog led the procession, capering and 
exultant, as though it claimed for itself the credit for 
pursuing and capturing the temple-thief. The people 
actually voted it a public ration of food and entrusted 
the charge of this to the priests in perpetuity, thereby 
imitating the ancient Athenian kindness to the mule. 
For when Pericles was building the Hecatompedon @ 
on the Acropolis, stones were naturally brought by 
numerous teams of draught-animals every day. Now 
one of the mules who had assisted gallantly in the 
work, but had now been discharged because of old 
age, ued to go down every day to the Ceramicus 
and meet the beasts which brought the stones, 
turning back with them and tr otting along by their 
side, as though to encourage and cheer them on. 
So the people of Athens, admiring its enterprise, 
gave orders for it to be maintained at the public 
expense, voting it free meals, as though to an athlete 
who had succumbed to old age.? 

14.¢ Therefore those who deny that there is any 
kind of justice owed to animals? by us must be 
conceded to be right so far as marine and deep-sea 
creatures ὁ are concerned ; for these are completely 


mule was 80 years old and is followed by Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
viii. 175. 

¢ There is probably a lacuna before this chapter. 

4 Cf. 999 B infra; 964 B supra. 

ε Cf. additional sources cited by Mair on Oppian, Hal. 
ii. 43. 
83 


69 


(970) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Kal aoTopya Kal πάσης ἄμοιρα γλυκυθυμίας" Kat 
καλῶς Ὅμηρος εἶπε 


γλαυκὴ δέ σ᾽ ἔτικτε θάλασσα 


πρὸς τὸν ἀνήμερον εἶναι δοκοῦντα καὶ ἄμικτον, ὡς 
\ ond / ’ -. \ \ ~ / 
μηδὲν τῆς θαλάσσης εὐνοϊκὸν μηδὲ πρᾶον depov- 


¢ \ \ \ \ a a / / 
‘ons. ὁ δὲ Kal πρὸς τὰ χερσαῖα τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ 


, > \ \ , ἊΝ ‘1 / 
χρώμενος ἀπηνὴς Kal θηριώδης" ἢ μηδὲ Λυσιμάχῳ 
«ς 
τι γεγονέναι φήσῃ" πρὸς τὸν κύνα τὸν ‘YpKavov 
δίκαιον, ὃς νεκρῷ τε μόνος παρέμεινεν αὐτῷ Kat, 
~ > « 
καομένου τοῦ σώματος, ἐνδραμὼν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν 
Be \ > oa ἃ \ \ > 1 3 = , 
ἐπέρριψε. τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ Kat τὸν aetov® δρᾶσαι λέ- 
Δ / > ς rN \ > ϑ «ὦ ’ 
γουσιν, ὃν Πύρρος οὐχ ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερός τις 
> / ” > / \ >) ~ \ \ 
ἰδιώτης ἔθρεψεν: ἀποθανόντος yap αὐτοῦ περὶ τὸ 
σῶμα διατρίβων καὶ περὶ τὸ κλινίδιον αἰωρούμενος 
/ 
ἐκφερομένου, τέλος εἰς τὴν πυρὰν στειλάμενος 
ἀφῆκεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ συγκατέκαυσε. 
“- > “ 
Πώρου δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ὁ ἐλέφας, ἐν τῇ πρὸς 
᾿Αλέξανδρον μάχῃ κατατετρωμένου, πολλὰ τῶν 
Η > 
ἀκοντισμάτων ἀτρέμα Kal φειδόμενος ἐξήρει TH 
προβοσκίδι, καὶ κακῶς ἤδη διακείμενος αὐτὸς οὐ 
/ >? / μ ~ / > / 
πρότερον ἐνέδωκεν ἢ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐξαίμου yevo- 
1 ἢ μηδὲ E only: εἰ δὲ μὴ. 5. φήσῃ Madvig: φήσει. 


ars ‘ E See > \ δε τς 
ἀετὸν Emperius : ἀστὸν and αὐτὸν. 





@ Iliad, xvi. 34. 

» Mor. 821 a: the companion and successor of Alexander 
(c. 360-281 z.c.). Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 143; Aelian, 
De Natura Animal. vi. 25; and ii. 40 (cf. vi. 29), of eagles. 
384 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 970 


lacking in amiability, apathetic, and devoid of all 
sweetness of disposition. And well did Homer @ say 


The gray-green sea bore you, 


with reference to a man regarded as uncivilized and 
unsociable, implying that the sea produces nothing 
friendly or gentle. But a man who would use such 
speech in regard to land animals is himself cruel and 
brutal. Or perhaps you will not admit that there was 
a bond of justice between Lysimachus ὃ and the 
Hyrcanian dog which alone stood guard by his 
corpse and, when his body was cremated, rushed into 
the flames and hurled itself upon him.’ The same is 
reported to have been done by the eagle ὦ which was 
kept by Pyrrhus, not the king, but a certain private 
citizen ; when he died, it kept vigil by his body ; at 
the funeral it hovered about the bier and finally 
folded its wings, settled on the pyre and was con- 
sumed with its master’s body. 

The elephant of King Porus,’ when he was wounded 
in the battle against Alexander, gently and solici- 
tously pulled out with its trunk many 7 of the javelins 
sticking in its master. Though it was in a sad state 
itself, it did not give up until it perceived that the 


It may be conjectured that ii. 40 was derived from an original 
in which ἀετῶν was confused with κυνῶν, as infra. 

¢ Similar stories in Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 40. 

4‘ Dog” and "“ eagle”’ are again confused; but the 
“hovering ”’ is here decisive. (Cf. also Wilamowitz, Hermes, 
lxiii, p. 380.) The dog reappears in Pollux, v. 42 (where it is 
King Pyrrhus), an eagle in a similar tale in Pliny, Nat. 
Hist. x. 18, while Pyrrhus is the name of a dog in Pliny, 
vill. 144. 

¢ Life of Alewander, |x. 13 (699 B-c), with Ziegler’s refer- 
ences ad loc. 

7“ Fach one of the spears ”’ in the Life of Alexander. 


VOL, XII oO 385 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(970) μένου καὶ περιρρέοντος αἰσθόμενος" καὶ φοβηθεὶς μὴ 
πέσῃ πράως ὑφῆκε, παρέχων ἐκείνῳ τὴν ἀπόκλισιν 
ἄλυπον. 

« \ / \ \ “ - > 

O δὲ Βουκεφάλας γυμνὸς μὲν ὧν παρεῖχεν ava- 
βῆναι τῷ ἱπποκόμῳ, κοσμηθεὶς δὲ τοῖς βασιλικοῖς 
προκοσμίοις καὶ περιδεραίοις οὐδένα προσίετο πλὴν 
αὐτὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον᾽ τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις, εἰ πειρώμενοι 
προσίοιεν, ἐναντίος ἐπιτρέχων ἐχρεμέτιζε μέγα καὶ 

E ἐνήλλετο᾽ καὶ κατεπάτει τοὺς μὴ πρόσω ἵεσθαι 
μηδ᾽ ἀποφεύγειν φθάσαντας. 

15. Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ δ᾽ ὅτι τὸ" τῶν παραδειγμάτων 
Ἐς A / / Ε ” \ ε / ~ 
ὑμῖν φανεῖταί τι ποικίλον: οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ῥᾳδίως τῶν 
εὐφυῶν ζῴων πρᾶξιν εὑρεῖν μιᾶς ἔμφασιν ἀρετῆς 
ἔχουσαν: ἀλλ᾽ ἐμφαίνεται καὶ τῷ φιλοστόργῳ τὸ 
φιλότιμον αὐτῶν καὶ τῷ γενναίῳ τὸ θυμόσοφον, 1 
τε πανουργία καὶ τὸ συνετὸν οὐκ ἀπήλλακται τοῦ 

~ \ > / 2 A > \ 
θυμοειδοῦς Kal ἀνδρώδους. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ BovdAo- 
μένοις διαιρεῖν καὶ διορίζειν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον, ἡμέρου 
μὲν ἔμφασιν ὁ ὁμοῦ καὶ ὑψηλοῦ φρονήματος ποιοῦσιν 
ot κύνες, ἀποτρεπόμενοι τῶν συγκαθεζομένων: ὥς 
που καὶ ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται 


Ἐ «ς \ r ‘é > ὃ 3 > \ ᾽Οὃ \ 
οἱ μὲν κεκλήγοντες ἐπέδραμον: αὐτὰρ “Odvacevs 
ἕζετο κερδοσύνῃ, σκῆπτρον δέ οἱ ἔκπεσε χειρός" 


> / \ / ~ ~ 
οὐκέτι γὰρ προσμάχονται τοῖς ὑποπεσοῦσι καὶ γε- 
/ A U 
γονόσι ταπεινοῖς Tas ἕξεις ὁμοίοις. 


1 αἰσθόμενος Diibner: αἰσθανόμενος. 
2 ἐνήλλετο Diibner : συνήλλετο. 
3 τὸ added by Wyttenbach. 


« Other stories of humane elephants in Aelian, De Natura 
Animal, iii. 46; αἱ. 

> Of. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 154; Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 
vy. 2; and see the parallels collected by Sternbach, |Viener 


386 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 970 


king had lost much blood and was slipping off ; then, 
fearing that he would fall, it gently kneeled and 
afforded its master a painless glide.” 

Bucephalas ὃ unsaddled would permit his groom to 
mount him; but when he was all decked out in his 
royal accoutrements and collars, he would let no one 
approach except Alexander himself. If any others 
tried to come near, he would charge at them loudly 
neighing and rear and trample any of them who 
were not quick enough to rush far away and escape. 

15. 1 am not unaware that you will think that my 
examples are rather a hodge-podge ; but it is not 
easy to find naturally clever animals doing anything 
which illustrates merely one of their virtues. Their 
probity, rather, is revealed in their love of offspring 
and their cleverness in their nobility ; then, too, 
their craftiness and intelligence is inseparable from 
their ardour and courage. Those, nevertheless, who 
are intent on classifying and defining each separate 
occasion will find that dogs give the impression of a 
mind that is at once civil and superior when they 
turn away from those who sit on the ground—which 
is presumably referred to in the lines ¢ 


The dogs barked and rushed up, but wise Odysseus 
Cunningly crouched ; the staff slipped from his hand ; 


for dogs cease attacking those who have thrown 
themselves down and taken on an attitude that 
resembles humility.? 


Studien, xvi, pp. 17 f. The story is omitted by Plutarch in 
the Life of Alexander. 

¢ Homer, Odyssey, xiv. 30 f.; ef. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 
146; Antigonus, Hist. Mirab. 24; Aristotle, Rhetoric, ii. 
3. 6 (1380 a 24). 

4 Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 48, of the lion. 


387 


(970) 


io) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Φασὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν πρωτεύοντα κύνα τῶν ᾿Ϊνδικῶν 
τὸν μάλιστα θαυμασθέντα πρὸς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου, ἐλά- 
φου μὲν" ἀφιεμένου καὶ κάπρου καὶ ἄρκτου, 
ἡσυχίαν ἔχοντα κεῖσθαι καὶ περιορᾶν, ὀφθέντος δὲ 
λέοντος, εὐθὺς ἐξαναστῆναι καὶ διακονίεσθαι καὶ 
φανερὸν εἶναι αὑτοῦ ποιούμενον ἀνταγωνιστήν, τῶν 
δ᾽ ἄλλων ὑπερφρονοῦντα πάντων. 

Οἱ δὲ τοὺς δασύποδας διώκοντες, ἐὰν μὲν αὐτοὶ 
κτείνωσιν, ἥδονται διασπῶντες καὶ τὸ αἷμα λάπ- 
τουσι προθύμως: ἐὰν δ᾽ ἀπογνοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὁ λαγωός, 
ὃ γίνεται πολλάκις, ὅσον ἔχει πνεύματος εἰς τὸν 
ἔσχατον ἀναλώσας δρόμον ἐκλίπῃ, νεκρὸν κατα- 
λαβόντες οὐκ ἅπτονται τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵστανται 
τὰς οὐρὰς κινοῦντες, ὡς οὐ κρεῶν χάριν ἀλλὰ νίκης 
καὶ φιλονικίας ἀγωνιζόμενοι. 

16. Ilavouvpyias δὲ πολλῶν παραδειγμάτων. ὄν- 
των, ἀφεὶς ἀλώπεκας καὶ λύκους καὶ τὰ γεράνων 
σοφίσματα καὶ κολοιῶν, ἔστι γὰρ δῆλα, μάρτυρι 
χρήσομαι Θαλῇ τῷ παλαιοτάτῳ τῶν σοφῶν, ὃ ὃν οὐχ 
ἥκιστα θαυμασθῆναι λέγουσιν ὀρέως" τέχνῃ περι- 
γενόμενον. τῶν γὰρ ἁληγῶν ἡ ἡμιόνων εἷς ἐμβαλὼν 
εἰς ποταμὸν ὦλισθεν αὐτομάτως καὶ τῶν ἁλῶν δια- 
τακέντων ἀναστὰς ἐλαφρὸς ἤσθετο τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ 


1 τὸν (W. C. H.) μάλιστα θαυμασθέντα πρὸς ᾿Αλεξάνδρου van 
Herwerden: καὶ μαχεσθέντα πρὸς ᾿Αλέξανδρον. 

* μὲν added by Benseler. 

3 ὀρέως Amyot: ὀρθῶς. 


α There are nearly as many emendations of this phrase as 
there have been scholars interested in Plutarch’s text. Van 
Herwerden’s version, as having the liveliest sense, has been 
preferred. It is by no means certain, however, though sup- 
ported by Aelian, De Natura Animal, viii. 1; Pliny, Vat. 


388 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 970-971 


They relate further that the champion of the 
Indian dogs, one greatly admired by Alexander,? 
when a stag was let loose and a boar and a bear, lay 
quiet and still and disregarded them; but when a 
lion appeared, it sprang up at once = prepare for 
the fray, showing clearly that it chose to match itself 
with the lion ὃ and scorned all the others. 

Hounds that hunt hares, if they themselves kill 
them, enjoy pulling them to pieces ° and eagerly lap 
up the blood ; but if, as frequently happens, a hare 
in desperation exhausts all its breath in a final sprint 
and expires, the hounds, when they come upon it 
dead, will not touch it at all, but stand there wagging 
their tails, as much as to say that they do not strive 
for food, but for victory and the honour of winning. 

16. There are many examples of cunning, but I 
shall dismiss foxes and wolves? and the tricks of 
crane and daw (for they are obvious), and shall take 
for my witness Thales,’ the most ancient of the Wise 
Men, not the least of whose claims to admiration, 
they say, was his getting the better of.a mule by a 
trick. For one of the mules that were used to carry 
salt, on entering a river, accidentally stumbled and, 
since the salt melted away, it was free of its burden 
when it got up. It recognized the cause of this and 


Hist. viii. 149; cf. also Pollux, v. 43-44 and the parallels 
cited by Bethe ad loc. See also Aelian, iv. 19 and Diodorus, 
xvil. 94. 

> Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 149 f., adds the elephant as a 
worthy match. 

¢ So “ὁ break up’: Xenophon, Cynegetica, vii. 9. 

4 Cf. Pindar, Pythians, ii. 84; Oppian, Cynegetica, iii. 
266. 

¢ Omitted in Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok., not with- 
out reasen. Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 42. 

7 See the Septem Sapientium Convivium (Mor. 146 5 ff.). 


389 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


P / σ / 2 ie \ ’ 
(971) κατεμνημόνευσεν" ὥστε διαβαίνων ἀεὶ τὸν ποταμόν, 
> / « / \ / \ > - / 
ἐπίτηδες ὑφιέναι καὶ βαπτίζειν τὰ ἀγγεῖα, συγκαθί- 
ζων καὶ ἀπονεύων εἰς ἑκάτερον μέρος: ἀκούσας 
> ¢ ~ > / > \ ~ ς ~ > / \ 
οὖν ὁ Θαλῆς ἐκέλευσεν ἀντὶ τῶν ἁλῶν ἐρίων τὰ 
ἀγγεῖα καὶ σπόγγων ἐμπλήσαντας καὶ ἀναθέντας, 
> \ 
C ἐλαύνειν τὸν ἡμίονον. ποιήσας οὖν TO εἰωθὸς καὶ 
> / “ \ / ~ > a 
ἀναπλήσας ὕδατος τὰ φορτία συνῆκεν ἀλυσιτελῆ 
σοφιζόμενος ἑαυτῷ, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὕτω προσέχων 
\ / / \ / σ > 
καὶ φυλαττόμενος διέβαινε τὸν ποταμόν, ὥστε μηδ 
~ ~ - / 
ἄκοντος αὐτοῦ τῶν φορτίων παραψαῦσαι TO ὑγρόν. 
ἤλλλην δὲ πανουργίαν ὁμοῦ μετὰ τοῦ φιλοστόργου 
/ > / \ \ \ 27 
πέρδικες ἐπιδεικνύντες τοὺς μὲν νεοττοὺς ἐθίζουσι 
μηδέπω φεύγειν δυναμένους, ὅταν διώκωνται, κατα- 
/ « / « A ~ / a“ \ 
Badovras ὑπτίους ἑαυτοὺς βῶλόν τινα ἢ συρφετὸν 
ἄνω προΐσχεσθαι τοῦ σώματος οἷον ἐπηλυγαζο- 
, ᾽ 1 \ \ , Ἐν » 
μένους: αὐταὶ δὲ τοὺς διώκοντας ὑπάγουσιν ἄλλῃ 
καὶ περισπῶσιν εἰς" ἑαυτάς, ἐμποδὼν διαπετόμεναι 
D καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν ἐξανιστάμεναι, μέχρις ἂν ὅσον 
” 23 «CO , , > - \ 
οὔπω γ᾽" ἁλισκομένων δόξαν ἐνδιδοῦσαι, μακρὰν 
ἀποσπάσωσι τῶν νεοττῶν. 
Οἱ δὲ δασύποδες πρὸς εὐνὴν ἐπανιόντες ἄλλον 
ἀλλαχῆ κοιμίζουσι' τῶν λαγιδέων, καὶ πλέθρου διά- 
/ > / > / “ μ) 
στημα πολλάκις ἀλλήλων ἀπέχοντας, ὅπως, ἂν 
»Μ δ. / rd / 
ἄνθρωπος ἢ κύων ἐπίῃ, μὴ πάντες ἅμα συγκινδυ- 
1 αὐταὶ Reiske: αὗται. 


2 εἰς added by early editors. 
3 ὅσον οὔπω y Naber and W. C. H.: οὕτως. 


390 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 971 


bore it in mind. The result was that every time it 
crossed the river, it would deliberately lower itself 
and wet the bags, crouching and bending first to 
one side, then to the other. When Thales heard of 
this, he gave orders to fill the bags with wool and 
sponges instead of salt and to drive the mule laden 
in this manner. So when it played its customary 
trick and soaked its burden with water, it came to 
know that its cunning was unprofitable and thereafter 
was so attentive and cautious in crossing the river 
that the water never touched the slightest portion 
of its burden even by accident. 

Partridges % exhibit another piece of cunning, com- 
bined with affection for their young. They teach 
their fledglings, who are not yet able to fly, to lie on 
their backs when they are pursued and to keep above 
them as a screen some piece of turf or rubbish. The 
mothers meanwhile lure the hunters in another 
direction and divert attention to themselves, flutter- 
ing along at their feet and rising only briefly until, 
by making it seem that they are on the point of 
being captured, they draw them far away from their 
young. 

When hares ὃ return for repose, they put to sleep 
their leverets in quite different places, often as much 
as a hundred feet apart, so that, if man or dog comes 
near, they shall not all be simultaneously in danger. 


2 Cf. 992 8 infra; Mor. 494 πὶ and the references there ; 
add Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 103; Philo, 35 (p. 117) (probably 
referring to partridges, though the Latin version reads 
palumbae); Antigonus, Hist. Mirab. 39 ; Aelian, De Natura 
Animal. iii. 16; xi. 38; Aristotle, Historia Animal. 613 
beste 

> Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. xiii. 11; vi. 47. 


4 





κοιμίζουσι Some MSS.: κομίζουσι. 


391 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ - ~ 
(97 1) vevwow: αὐτοὶ δὲ πολλαχόθι ταις μεταδρομαῖς ἴχνη 
, \ > »” a / \ \ ~ 
θέντες, TO δ᾽ ἔσχατον ἅλμα μέγα καὶ μακρὰν τῶν 
>] ~ ¢ 
ἰχνῶν ἀποσπάσαντες οὕτω καθεύδουσιν. 
€ ~ ~ 
Η δ᾽ ἄρκτος ὑπὸ τοῦ πάθους, ὃ καλοῦσι φω- 
λείαν, καταλαμβανομένη, πρὶν ἢ παντάπασι ναρ- 
΄ \ ,ὔ ~ \ / /, 

E κῆσαι καὶ γενέσθαι βαρεῖα καὶ δυσκίνητος, Tov TE 
’ὔ » / x 7 / \ 
τόπον ἀνακαθαίρει Kat μέλλουσα καταδύεσθαι τὴν 
\ Μ / « 3 / / A 
μὲν ἄλλην πορείαν ws ἐνδέχεται μάλιστα ποιεῖται 

/ \ , \ »Μ > / ~ 
μετέωρον καὶ ἐλαφρὰν ἄκροις ἐπιθιγγάνουσα Tots 
ἴχνεσι, τῷ νώτῳ δὲ τὸ σῶμα προσάγει καὶ παρα- 
κομίζει πρὸς τὸν φωλεόν. 

~ ¢ 

Τῶν ἐλάφων" δ᾽ at θήλειαι μάλιστα τίκτουσι 
A \ i / e \ / / \ ,ὔ 
παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν, ὅπου τὰ σαρκοβόρα θηρία μὴ πρόσ- 
“ 5» » Ὁ ” - ¢ \ 
εισιν: οἵ T ἄρρενες, ὅταν αἴσθωνται βαρεῖς ὑπὸ 
~ \ / y+ > / / 
πιμελῆς Kal πολυσαρκίας ὄντες, ἐκτοπίζουσι σῴ- 
¢ \ ~ fi “ ~ / 98 
ζοντες αὑτοὺς τῷ λανθάνειν, ὅτε τῷ φεύγειν οὐ 
/ 
πεποίθασιν. 
~ \ / > / 6 \ « \ «ς ΄ ΝΜ 
Τῶν δὲ χερσαίων ἐχίνων ἡ μὲν ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἄμυνα 
F καὶ φυλακὴ παροιμίαν πεποίηκε 
A “A 
πόλλ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχῖνος ἕν μέγα: 
1 φωλείαν Reiske: φωλίαν or φωλία. 


2 τῶν ἐλάφων Jannotius: τῶν ἐλεφάντων. 
3 οὐ] οὐκέτι Ὗ. C. Η. 





«α« Of. Aelian, De Natura Animal. νὶ. 8. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
viii. 126 f.; Mair on Oppian, Cyn. iii. 173 (L.C.L.). 


392 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 971 


The hares themselves run to and fro and leave tracks 
in many places, but last of all with a great leap they 
leave their traces far behind, and so to bed. 

The she-bear, just prior to the state called hiber- 
nation,? before she becomes quite torpid and heavy 
and finds it difficult to move, cleans out her lair and, 
when about to enter, approaches it as lightly and 
inconspicuously as possible, treading on tiptoe, then 
turns around and backs into the den.? 

Hinds are inclined to bear their young beside a 
public road where carnivorous animals do not come ° ; 
and stags, when they observe that they have grown 
heavy by reason of their fat and surplus flesh, vanish 
and preserve themselves by hiding when they do not 
trust to their heels.4¢ 

The way in which hedgehogs defend and guard 
themselves has occasioned the proverb ® : 


The fox knows many tricks, but the hedgehog one big one ; 


» These precautions seem to have been successful (though 
cf. the implications of Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 128), since 
Aristotle (Historia Animal. viii. 17, 600 b 6 f.) says that 
‘‘ either no one (or very few)” has ever caught a pregnant 
bear. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 95 and Amm. Mare. xxii. 
15. 22, of the hippopotamus entering a field backwards. 

¢ Aristotle (Historia Animal. ix. 5, 611 a 17) notes that 
highways were shunned by wild animals because they feared 
men. Cf. also Antigonus, Hist. Mirab. 35 and Mair on 
Oppian, Cyn. ii. 207 (L.C.L.). 

¢ Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 113; [Aristotle], De Mir. 
Ause. 5; Historia Animal. 611 a 28. 

¢ See Shorey on Plato, Republic, 423 © (L.C.L.) ; Leutsch 
and Schneidewin, Paroemiographi Graeci, i, p. 147, Zenobius, 
v. 68; attributed by Zenobius to Archilochus (Diehl, Antho- 
logia Lyrica, i, p. 241, frag. 103; Edmonds, Elegy and 
TIambus, ii, p. 174, frag. 118) and to Homer. Zenobius also 
quotes five lines from Ion, of which the last two are Plutarch’s 
next quotation. 


393 


(971) 


972 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ \ XA σ ς ἽὝἼΠ 1 
προσιούσης γὰρ αὐτῆς, ὥς φησιν ὁ ἤϊων, 


στρόβιλος ἀμφάκανθον" εἱλίξας δέμας, 
κεῖται θιγεῖν τε καὶ δακεῖν ἀμήχανος. 


γλαφυρωτέρα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ περὶ τῶν σκυμνίων πρό- 


νοια᾿ μετοπώρου γὰρ ὑπὸ τὰς ἀμπέλους ὑποδυό- 
μενος, καὶ τοῖς ποσὶ τὰς ῥᾶγας ἀποσείσας τοῦ 
βότρυος χαμᾶζε καὶ περικυλινδηθείς, “ἀναλαμβάνει 
ταῖς ἀκάνθαις" καὶ παρέσχε ποτὲ παισὶν" ἡμῖν ὁρῶ- 
σιν ὄψιν ἑρπούσης ἢ βαδιζούσης σταφυλῆς". εἶτα 
καταδὺς εἰς τὸν φωλεὸν τοῖς σκύμνοις χρῆσθαι καὶ 
λαμβάνειν ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ ταμιευομένοις" παραδίδωσι. 
τὸ δὲ κοιταῖον αὐτῶν ὀπὰς ἔχει δύο, τὴν μὲν πρὸς 

/ \ \ \ / / oe \ 
νότον τὴν δὲ πρὸς βορέαν βλέπουσαν: ὅταν δὲ 

~ σ 
προαίσθωνται τὴν διαφορὰν τοῦ ἀέρος, ὥσπερ 
ἱστίον κυβερνῆται μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐμφράττουσι 
/ 
τὴν κατ᾽ ἄνεμον τὴν δ᾽ ἑτέραν ἀνοίγουσι. καὶ 
τοῦτό τις ἐν Κυζίκῳ καταμαθὼν δόξαν ἔσχεν ὡς 
> ~ A / / 
ἀφ᾽ αὑτοῦ τὸν μέλλοντα πνεῖν ἄνεμον Tpoayopevwv. 
, ~ ~ 

17. To ye μὴν κοινωνικὸν μετὰ τοῦ συνετοῦ τοὺς 
2 > / / © ih / 
ἐλέφαντας ἀποδείκνυσθαί φησιν ὁ Ιόβας. ὀρύγ- 

ε 

ματα γὰρ αὐτοῖς οἱ θηρεύοντες ὑπεργασάμενοι 
λεπτοῖς φρυγάνοις καὶ φορυτῷ" κούφῳ κατερέφου- 

1 ὁ Ἴων Meziriacus : οἷον. 

2 ἀμφάκανθον Salmasius: ἀμφ᾽ ἄκανθαν. 

3 παισὶν Kronenberg : πᾶσιν. 

4 σταφυλῆς] the mss. add οὕτως ἀνάπλεως ἐχώρει τῆς ὀπώρας, 
deleted by W. C. H. 

5 ταμιευόμενος Andrews ; -ομένου W. C. H. 

8 φορυτῷ Meziriacus: φόρτῳ. 


* Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 739; frag. 38, verses 4 f. 
(see the preceding note). 
ὃ The mss. add an unnecessary explanation : ‘‘so covered 


394 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 971-972 


for when the fox approaches, as Ion @ says, it, 


Curling its spiny body in a coil, 
Lies still, impregnable to touch or bite. 


But the provision that the hedgehog makes for its 
young is even more ingenious. When autumn comes, 
it creeps under the vines and with its paws shakes 
down to the ground grapes from the bunches and, 
having rolled about in them, gets up with them 
attached to its quills. Once when I was a child I 
saw one, like a creeping or walking bunch of grapes ! ἢ 
Then it goes down into its hole and delivers the load 
to its young for them to enjoy and draw rations from. 
Their lair has two openings, one facing the south, 
the other the north; when they perceive that the 
wind will change, like good skippers who shift sail, 
they block up the entrance which lies to the wind and 
open the other. And a man in Cyzicus ὦ observing 
this acquired a reputation for being able to predict 
unaided which way the wind would blow. 

17. Elephants, as Juba ὁ declares, exhibit a social 
capacity joined with intelligence. Hunters dig pits 
for them, covering them with slender twigs and 


with fruit was it as it walked.” Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 
133; Aelian, De Natura Animal. iii. 10; Anth. Pal. vi. 169. 
¢ Cf. 979 «a infra; Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 
(ΟΠ Pimy, Nat? Hist. vin. 159: 07. vill. 195. oF 
squirrels. On animals who predict the weather see Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. xviii. 361-364. 
4 Aristotle (loc. cit.) says Byzantium (and see infra, 979 B). 
¢ Miiller, Frag. Hist. Graec. iii, Ὁ. 474; Jacoby, Frag. 
der griech. Hist. iii, pp. 146 f., frag. 5la, 53; ef. Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. viii. 24; Aelian, De Natura Animal. viii. 15; 
vi. 61; and see the criticism in 977 Ὁ-Ὲ infra. On the 
mutual assistance of elephants see Philostratus, Vita Apoll. 
ii. 16. 
395 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(972) ow: ὅταν οὖν τις εἰσολίσθῃ, πολλῶν ὁμοῦ πορευο- 
/ ¢ \ ~ Ὁ \ / 
μένων, ot λοιποὶ φοροῦντες ὕλην Kat λίθους 
> / > - \ / ~ 
ἐμβάλλουσιν, ἀναπληροῦντες τὴν κοιλότητα τοῦ 
ὀρύγματος, ὥστε ῥᾳδίαν ἐκείνῳ γίνεσθαι τὴν ἔκ- 
A -“ lo ~ > 
Baow. ἱστορεῖ δὲ καὶ εὐχῇ χρῆσθαι θεῶν τοὺς ἐλέ- 
> / ¢ / ~ / \ 
φαντας ἀδιδάκτως, ἁγνιζομένους τε τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ 
\ σ > / ~ \ 
Tov ἥλιον ἐκφανέντα προσκυνοῦντας ὥσπερ χειρὸς 
3 / ~ / Ὁ \ / 
ἀνασχέσει τῆς προβοσκίδος. ὅθεν καὶ θεοφιλέστα- 
/ > \ / ¢ ~ e 7 
C τόν ἐστι τὸ θηρίον, ὡς [[΄τολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλοπάτωρ 
ἐμαρτύρησε. κρατήσας γὰρ ᾿Αντιόχου καὶ βουλό- 
~ ~ A / 
μενος ἐκπρεπῶς τιμῆσαι TO θεῖον ἄλλα τε πάμπολλα 
κατέθυσεν ἐπινίκια τῆς μάχης καὶ τέσσαρας ἐλέ- 
φαντας: εἶτα νύκτωρ ὀνείρασιν ἐντυχών, ὡς τοῦ 
θεοῦ μετ᾽ ὀργῆς ἀπειλοῦντος αὐτῷ διὰ τὴν ἀλλό- 
- wel : 7] 
> / / ¢ a A 7 
KoTov ἐκείνην θυσίαν, ἱλασμοῖς τε πολλοῖς ἐχρήσατο 
καὶ χαλκοῦς ἐλέφαντας ἀντὶ τῶν σφαγέντων ἀνέ- 
στῆσε τέσσαρας. 
> it \ \ \ ~ / ς \ 
Ody ἧττον δὲ κοινωνικὰ τὰ τῶν λεόντων. οἱ yap 
A ͵ / 
νέοι τοὺς βραδεῖς καὶ γέροντας ἤδη συνεξάγουσιν 
ἐπὶ θήραν: ὅπου δ᾽ ἂν ἀπαγορεύσωσιν, οἱ μὲν 
/ / ¢ \ / an“ / 
κάθηνται περιμένοντες οἱ δὲ θηρεύουσι: Kav AaBw- 
~ ~ - 
D ow ὁτιοῦν, ἀνακαλοῦνται, μόσχου μυκήματι τὸ 
~ > 
βρύχημα ποιοῦντες ὅμοιον" ot δ᾽ εὐθὺς αἰσθάνονται 
καὶ παραγενόμενοι κοινῇ τὴν ἄγραν ἀναλίσκουσιν. 
18. "Epwres δὲ θηρίων' οἱ μὲν ἄγριοι καὶ περι- 
μανεῖς γεγόνασιν, οἱ δ᾽ ἔχοντες οὐκ ἀπάνθρωπον 


1 θηρίων W.C. Ἡ. : πολλῶν. 








4 Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 1 f.; Dio Cassius, xxxix. 38, 5. 
396 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 972 


light rubbish ; when, accordingly, any elephant of a 
number travelling together falls in, the others bring 
wood and stones and throw them in to fill up the 
excavation so that their comrade can easily get out. 
He also relates that, without any instruction, ele- 
phants pray to the gods, purifying themselves in 
the sea ® and, when the sun? rises, worshipping it 
by raising their trunks, as if they were hands of 
supplication. For this reason they are the animal 
most loved of the gods, as Ptolemy Philopator “ has 
testified ; for when he had vanquished Antiochus 
and wished to honour the gods in a really striking 
way, among many other offerings to commemorate 
his victory in battle, he sacrificed four elephants. 
Thereafter, since he had dreams by night in which 
the deity angrily threatened him because of that 
strange sacrifice, he employed many rites of appease- 
ment and set up as a votive offering four bronze 
elephants to match those he had slaughtered. 

Social usages are to be found no less among lions. 
For young lions take along with them to the hunt the 
old and slow; when the latter are tired out, they rest 
and wait, while the young lions hunt on. When they 
have taken anything, they summon the others by a 
roaring like the bleat of a calf; the old ones hear it 
at once and come to partake in common of the prey.? 

18. The loves of some animals are wild and furious, 
while others have a refinement which is not far from 


ὃ The moon in Aelian, De Natura Animal. iv. 10, but the 
sun in vii. 44; of tigers in Philostratus, Vita Apoll. li. 28. 

¢ Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 44: Ptolemy IV (ec. 
244-205 B.c.), who reigned 221-205. The decisive defeat of 
Antiochus III was at Raphia in 217. For the gods loving 
elephants see Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 2; al. 

4 Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. ix. 1. 


397 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(972) ὡραϊσμὸν οὐδ᾽ ἀναφρόδιτον ὁμιλίαν. οἷος ἦν ὁ τοῦ 
> / > > / - > ~ > 
ἐλέφαντος ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τοῦ ἀντερῶντος Αρι- 
στοφάνει τῷ γραμματικῷ" τῆς γὰρ αὐτῆς ἤρων 
στεφανοπώλιδος, καὶ οὐχ ἧττον ἦν ὁ “ἐλέφας διάδη- 
λος: ἔφερε γὰρ αὐτῇ τῆς ὀπώρας ἀεὶ τὰ" πρατήρια 
παραπορευόμενος, καὶ χρόνον πολὺν ὑφίστατο καὶ 
τὴν προβοσκίδα τῶν χιτωνίων ἐντὸς ὥσπερ χεῖρα 

E παραβαλὼν ἀτρέμα τῆς περὶ τὸ στῆθος ὥρας 
ἔψαυεν. 

ὋὉ δὲ δράκων ὁ τῆς AitwAidos ἐρασθεὶς ἐφοίτα 
νύκτωρ παρ᾽ αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦ σώματος ὑποδυόμενος 
ἐν χρῷ καὶ περιπλεκόμενος οὐδὲν οὐθ᾽ ἑκὼν οὔτ᾽ 
ἄκων ἔβλαψεν, ἀλλὰ κοσμίως ἀεὶ περὶ τὸν Op- 
θρον ἀπηλλάττετο. συνεχῶς δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦντος 

~ ¢ 
αὐτοῦ, μετῴκισαν οἱ προσήκοντες ἀπωτέρω τὴν 
ἄνθρωπον. ὁ δὲ τρεῖς μὲν ἢ τέτταρας νύκτας" οὐκ 
“5 > 9, Pe ” , ὡς \ , 
ἦλθεν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἔοικε περιήει ζητῶν καὶ πλανώμενος" 
μόλις δέ πως ἐξανευρὼν καὶ περιπεσὼν οὐ πρᾶος“ 
σ wis > \ / ~ \ Μ 
ὥσπερ εἰώθει ἀλλὰ τραχύτερος, τῷ μὲν ἄλλῳ σπει- 
F ράματι τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς ἔδησε πρὸς τὸ σῶμα, τῷ 
δ᾽ ἀπολήγοντι τῆς οὐρᾶς ἐμαστίγου τὰς κνήμας, 
> / \ / \ / ” 
ἐλαφράν τινα καὶ φιλόστοργον Kat πλέον ἔχουσαν 

“- \ / 
τοῦ κολάζοντος τὸ φειδόμενον ὀργὴν ἀποδεικνύ- 
μενος. 

\ > > Ἄν γα τ, 4 ~ a \ \ 

Tov δ᾽ ἐν Αἰγίῳ᾽ παιδεραστοῦντα χῆνα καὶ τὸν 
ἐπιθυμήσαντα LAavKns τῆς κιθαρῳδοῦ κριόν, περι- 

1 τὰ added by Bernardakis, after Reiske. 
2 νύκτας added by Wyttenbach. 
3 πρᾶος Bernardakis : πράως. 
Αἰγίῳ Aelian: αἰπῶ or αἰγύπτω. 


«α Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. i. 38 (ef. vii. 43) ; Pliny, 
Nat. Hist. viii. 13. 
398 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 972 


human and an intercourse conducted with much 
grace. Such was the elephant which at Alexandria 
played the rival to Aristophanes 5 the grammarian. 
They were, in fact, in love with the same flower-girl ; 
nor was the elephant’s love the less manifest : as he 
passed by the market, he always brought her fruit 
and stood beside her for a long time and would insert 
his trunk, like a hand,? within her garments and 
gently caress her fair breasts. 

The serpent that fell in love with an Aetolian 
woman ° used to visit her at night and slip under 
some part of her body next the skin and coil about 
her without doing her any harm at all, either in- 
tentional or accidental; but always at daybreak it 
was decent enough to glide away. And this it did 
constantly until the kinsmen of the woman removed 
her to a house at some distance. The serpent did 
not come to her for three or four nights; but all 
the time, we may suppose, it was going about in 
search of her and missing its goal. At last, when it 
had somehow found her with difficulty, it embraced 
her, not with that former gentleness it had used, but 
rather more roughly, its coils binding her hands to 
her body, and with the end of its tail it lashed the 
calves of her legs, displaying a light and tender anger 
that had in it more indulgence than punishment. 

As for the goose in Aegium that loved a boy and 
the ram that set his heart on Glauce ὦ the harp- 


> Cf. Mair on Oppian, Cyn. ii. 524 for additional authori- 
ties. 

¢ Told somewhat differently, and of a Jewish woman, in 
Aelian, De Natura Animal, vi. 17. 

4 Also a goose in Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 51. Both stories are 
in Aelian, De Natura Animal. v. 29 (ef. i. 6; viii. 11); for 
Glauce see also Gow’s note on Theocritus, iv. 31. 


399 


9 


‘ 


3 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


2) βόητοι γάρ εἰσι καὶ πολλῶν οἶμαι διηγημάτων δια- 
κορεῖς ὑμᾶς εἶναι" διὸ ταῦτα μὲν ἀφίημι. 

19. ‘Vdpes δὲ καὶ κόρακες καὶ ψιττακοὶ μανθά- 
νοντες διαλέγεσθαι καὶ τὸ τῆς φωνῆς πνεῦμα τοῖς 
διδάσκουσιν εὔπλαστον οὕτω καὶ μιμηλὸν' ἐξαρ- 
τύειν" καὶ ῥυθμίζειν παρέχοντες ἐμοὶ δοκοῦσι προ- 
δικεῖν καὶ συνηγορεῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζῴοις ἐν τῷ 
μανθάνειν, τρόπον τινὰ διδάσκοντες ἡμᾶς ὅτι καὶ 
προφορικοῦ λόγου καὶ φωνῆς ἐνάρθρου μέτεστιν 
αὐτοῖς: 7° καὶ πολὺς κατάγελως τὸ πρὸς ταῦτα 
καταλιπεῖν ἐκείνοις σύγκρισιν, οἷς οὐδ᾽ ὅσον ὠρύ- 
σασθαι μέτεστιν οὐδ᾽ ὅσον στενάξαι φωνῆς. τού- 
των δὲ καὶ τοῖς αὐτοφυέσι καὶ τοῖς ἀδιδάκτοις 
γηρύμασιν ὅση μοῦσα καὶ χάρις ἔπεστιν, οἱ λογιώ- 
τατοι καὶ καλλιφωνότατοι μαρτυροῦσι, τὰ ἥδιστα 
ποιήματα καὶ μέλη κύκνων καὶ ἀηδόνων ὠδαῖς 
ἀπεικάζοντες. ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦ μαθεῖν τὸ διδάξαι λογι- 
κώτερον, ἤδη πειστέον ᾿Αριστοτέλει λέγοντι καὶ 
τοῦτο τὰ ζῷα ποιεῖν: ὀφθῆναι γὰρ ἀηδόνα νεοσσὸν 
ἄδειν προδιδάσκουσαν. μαρτυρεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ φαυ- 
λότερον ἄδειν ὅσαις συμβέβηκε μικραῖς. ἁλούσαις" 
ἀποτρόφοις τῶν μητέρων γενέσθαι" διδάσκονται γὰρ 
at συντρεφόμεναι καὶ μανθάνουσιν οὐ διὰ μισθὸν 
οὐδὲ πρὸς δόξαν ἀλλὰ τῷ χαίρειν διαμελιζόμεναι 


καὶ τὸ καλὸν ἀγαπᾶν μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ χρειῶδες τῆς 
φωνῆς. 


1 μιμηλὸν ὃν Reiske, 
2. ἐξαρτύειν Reiske (cf. 973 Ὁ) : ἐξαριθμεῖν. 
3. 4 Wyttenbach: 7. 4 ἁλούσαις Xylander: ἀδούσαις. 





* More in Aelian, De Natura Animal, xii. 37; al. 

» Cf. Gellius, Noctes Atticae, xiii. 21. 25; Aleiphron, 
Epp. iii. 30. 1; Philostratus, Vita Apoll. i. 7; vi. 36: al. 
400 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 972-973 


player, since these are famous tales and I rather 
imagine you have had enough of such to spoil your 
appetite for more,* I omit them. 

19. As for starlings ἢ and crows and parrots which 
learn to talk and afford their teachers so malleable 
and imitative a vocal current to train and discipline, 
they seem to me to be champions and advocates of 
the other animals in their ability to learn, instructing 
us in some measure that they too are endowed both 
with rational utterance © and with articulate voice ; 
for which reason it is quite ridiculous to admit a 
comparison of them with creatures who have not 
enough voice even to howl or groan.4 And what 
music, what grace do we not find in the natural, un- 
taught warbling of birds! To this the most eloquent 
and musical of our poets bear witness’ when they 
compare their sweetest songs and poems to the sing- 
ing of swans and nightingales. Now since there is 
more reason in teaching than in learning, we must 
yield assent to Aristotle 7 when he says that animals 
do teach: a nightingale, in fact, has been observed 
instructing her young how to sing. A further proof 
that supports him is the fact that birds which have 
been taken young from the nest and bred apart from 
their mothers sing the worse for it; for the birds 
that are bred with their mothers are taught and 
learn, not for pay or glory, but for the joy of rivalling 
each other in song and because they cherish the 
beautiful in their utterance rather than the useful. 


© For the λόγος προφορικός see, ¢.g., Mor. 777 B-c. 
4 Cf. Aristotle, Historia Animal. iv. 9 (535 Ὁ 14 ff.). 
6 ¢.g., Bacchylides, iii. 97: Anth. Pal. vii. 414. 
7 Historia Animal, iv. 19 (535 Ὁ 17); cf. ix. 1 (608 a 18) ; 
ef. Aelian, De Natura Animal. iii. 40. 
9 Cf. 992 B-c infra. 
401 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


» \ \ / \ / ᾿] ~ \ ¢ ~ 
ἔχω δὲ περὶ τούτου καὶ λόγον εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 
ἀκούσας ᾿ Ἑλλήνων τε πολλῶν καὶ Ρωμαίων παρα- 
/ ” > 
γενομένων. κουρεὺς yap τις ἐργαστήριον ἔχων ἐν 
«ς / \ ~ / “ ~ ‘HAA / 
Ρώμῃ πρὸ τοῦ τεμένους, ὃ καλοῦσιν ἤνων 
ἀγοράν, θαυμαστόν τι χρῆμα πολυφώνου καὶ πολυ- 
΄ , ” aq ἀν , «7ὔ 
φθόγγου κίττης ἔτρεφεν, ἣ᾽ καὶ ἀνθρώπου ῥήματα 
\ / / \ / > / > 
καὶ θηρίων φθόγγους Kat ψόφους ὀργάνων ἀντ- 
/ 
απεδίδου, μηδενὸς ἀναγκάζοντος ἀλλ᾽ αὑτὴν ἐθί- 
ζουσα καὶ φιλοτιμουμένη μηδὲν ἄρρητον ἀπολιπεῖν 
μηδ᾽ ἀμίμητον. ἔτυχε δέ τις ἐκεῖθεν τῶν πλουσίων 
> / ς \ / ~ \ 
ἐκκομιζόμενος ὑπὸ σάλπιγξι πολλαῖς, καὶ yevo- 
μένης ὥσπερ εἴωθε κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐπιστάσεως, 
εὐδοκιμοῦντες οἱ σαλπιγκταὶ καὶ κελευόμενοι πολὺν 
/ > / ¢ \ / \ \ «ε / 
χρόνον ἐνδιέτριψαν: ἡ δὲ κίττα μετὰ τὴν ἡμέραν 
> / Μ S \ Μ > \ \ ea 
ἐκείνην ἄφθογγος ἦν καὶ ἄναυδος, οὐδὲ τὴν αὑτῆς 
ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις πάθεσιν ἀφιεῖσα φωνήν. τοῖς 
οὖν πρότερον αὐτῆς θαυμάζουσι τὴν φωνὴν τότε 
θαῦμα μεῖζον ἡ σιωπὴ παρεῖχε, κωφὸν ἀκρόαμα 
δ" 7 2 , \ , ς , \ 
τοῖς συνήθως" παροδεύουσι τὸν τόπον" ὑποψίαι δὲ 
φαρμάκων ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁμοτέχνους ἦσαν: οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι 
\ / ” > “ \ > / ~ > 
Tas σάλπιγγας εἴκαζον ἐκπλῆξαι τὴν ἀκοήν, TH ὃ 
5 ~ / \ / > > > / 
ἀκοῇ συγκατεσβέσθαι τὴν φωνήν. ἦν δ᾽ οὐδέτερα 
τούτων, ἀλλ᾽ ἄσκησις ws ἔοικε καὶ ἀναχώρησις εἰς 
ἑαυτὸ τοῦ μιμητικοῦ, καθάπερ ὄργανον ἐξαρτυο- 
μένου τὴν φωνὴν καὶ παρασκευάζοντος: ἄφνω γὰρ 
1 ἣ added by Bernardakis. 


2 ἀκροάματος συνήθους Reiske. 


402 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 973 


On this subject I have a story to tell you which I 
heard myself from many Greeks and Romans who 
were eye-witnesses. A certain barber at Rome had 
his shop directly opposite the precinct which they 
call the Market of the Greeks.¢ He bred up a 
wonderful prodigy of a jay ° with a huge range of 
tones and expressions, which could reproduce the 
phrases of human speech and the cries of beasts and 
the sound of instruments—under no compulsion, but 
making it a rule and a point of honour to let nothing 
go unrepeated or unimitated. Now it happened that 
a certain rich man was buried from that quarter to 
the blast of many trumpets and, as is customary, 
there was a halt in front of the barber-shop while 
the trumpeters, who were applauded and encored, 
played for a long time. From that day on the jay 
was speechless and mute, not letting out even a 
peep to request the necessities of life; so those 
who habitually passed the place and had formerly 
wondered at her voice, were now even more as- 
tonished at her silence. Some suspected that she 
had been poisoned by rival bird-trainers, but most 
conjectured that the trumpets had blasted her hear- 
ing and that her voice had been simultaneously 
extinguished. Now neither of these guesses was 
correct : it was self-discipline, it would seem, and her 
talent for mimicry that had sought an inner retreat 
as she refitted and prepared her voice like a musical 
instrument. For suddenly her mimicry returned 


α Graecostadium (see Platner and Ashby, 4 Topographical 
Dictionary of Rome, s.v.) or Forum Graecorum. 

» Cf. Porphyry, De Abstinentia, iii. 2 (p. 191. 8, ed. 
Nauck); Gow on Theocritus, v. 136; Aristotle, Historia 
Animal. ix. 13 (615 b 19 f.). See also the talking birds in 
Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 118-134. 

403 


(973) 
E 


974 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


τ 4 \ > / > \ ~ / \ 
αὖθις ἧκε καὶ ἀνέλαμψεν οὐδὲν τῶν συνήθων καὶ 
παλαιῶν μιμημάτων ἐκείνων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μέλη τῶν 
σαλπίγγων αὐταῖς περιόδοις φθεγγομένη καὶ μετα- 
βολὰς πάσας καὶ κρουμάτων διεξιοῦσα πάντας 
« / σ σ΄ ” lanl > / 
ῥυθμούς: ὥστε, ὅπερ ἔφην, τῆς εὐμαθείας λογικω- 
τέραν εἶναι τὴν αὐτομάθειαν ἐν αὐτοῖς. 

Πλὴν ἕ ἕν γέ τι μάθημα κυνὸς οὐ δοκῶ μοι παρή- 
σειν, γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ θεατής. παρὼν γὰρ ὃ 
κύων μίμῳ πλοκὴν ἔχοντι δραματικὴν καὶ πολυ- 
πρόσωπον ἄλλας τε μιμήσεις ἀπεδίδου τοῖς ὑπο- 
κειμένοις πάθεσι καὶ πράγμασι προσφόρους, καὶ 
φαρμάκου ποιουμένων ἐν αὐτῷ πεῖραν ὑπνωτικοῦ 
μὲν ὑποκειμένου δ᾽ εἶναι θανασίμου, τόν T ἄρτον, 
ᾧ δῆθεν ἐμέμικτο τὸ φάρμακον, ἐδέξατο καὶ κατα- 
φαγὼν ὀλίγον ὕστερον ὅμοιος ἦν ὑποτρέμοντι καὶ 
σφαλλομένῳ καὶ καρηβαροῦντι" τέλος δὲ προτείνας 
ἑαυτὸν ὥσπερ νεκρὸς ἔκειτο, καὶ παρεῖχεν ἕλκειν 
καὶ μεταφέρειν, ὡς ὁ τοῦ δράματος ὑπηγόρευε 
λόγος. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων καὶ 
πραττομένων ἐνόησεν, ἡσυχῆ τὸ πρῶτον ἐκίνησεν 
« / σ΄ > “ / > / \ 
ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ὕπνου βαθέος ἀναφερόμενος, Kal 

\ \ > / / » / 
τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπάρας διέβλεψεν: ἔπειτα θαυμασάν- 

2 \ > / \ “ A \ / 
των, ἐξαναστὰς ἐβάδιζε πρὸς ὃν ἔδει Kal προσή- 
1 / \ 7 “ 7, 
καλλεῖ χαίρων καὶ φιλοφρονούμενος, ὥστε πάντας 
ἀνθρώπους καὶ Καίσαρα (παρῆν γὰρ ὁ γέρων 
Οὐεσπασιανὸς ἐν τῷ Μαρκέλλου θεάτρῳ) συμπα- 

θεῖς γενέσθαι. 


1 προσήκαλλε Wyttenbach : προσῆκε μὲν. 


“ This is also the accomplishment of a homonymous bird 
in Aelian, De Natura Animal, vi. 19. 
» See 973 a supra, 


404 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 973-974 


and there blazed forth none of those old familiar 
imitations, but only the music of the trumpets,? 
reproduced with its exact sequences and every 
change of pitch and rhythm and tone. I conclude, 
as I said before,? that self-instruction implies more 
reason in animals than does readiness to learn from 
others. 

Still, I believe that I should not pass over one 
example at least of a dog’s learning,’ of which I 
myself was a spectator at Rome. The dog appeared 
in a pantomime with a dramatic plot and many 
characters and conformed in its acting at all points 
with the acts and reactions required by the text. 
In particular, they experimented on it with a drug 
that was really soporific, but supposed in the story 
to be deadly. The dog took the bread that was 
supposedly drugged, swallowed it, and a little later 
appeared to shiver and stagger and nod until it 
finally sprawled out and lay there like a corpse, 
letting itself be dragged and hauled about, as the 
plot of the play prescribed. But when it recognized 
from the words and action that the time had come, 
at first it began to stir slightly, as though recovering 
from a profound sleep, and lifted its head and looked 
about. Then to the amazement of the spectators it 
got up and proceeded to the right person and fawned 
on him with joy and pleasure so that everyone, and 
even Caesar himself (for the aged Vespasian? was 
present in the Theatre of Marcellus), was much 
moved. 

¢ Cf. the bears that acted a farce in Script. Hist. Aug., 
Vita Car. xix. 2. 

4 Vespasian became emperor in a.p. 69 when he was 60 


years old and died ten years later, so that this incident can 
be dated only within the decade. 


4.05 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(974) 90. DeAotor δ᾽ ἴσως ἐσμὲν ἐπὶ τῷ μανθάνειν τὰ 
ζῷα σεμνύνοντες, ὧν ὁ Δημόκριτος ἀποφαίνει 
μαθητὰς ἐν τοῖς μεγίστοις γεγονότας ἡμᾶς" ἀρά- 
xvns ev" ὑφαντικῇ καὶ ἀκεστικῇ, χελιδόνος ἐ ἐν οἶκο- 
δομίᾳ, καὶ τῶν λιγυρῶν, κύκνου καὶ ἀηδόνος, ἐν 
won κατὰ μίμησιν. ἰατρικῆς δὲ πολὺ τῶν τριῶν 

Β εἰδῶν ἑκάστου καὶ γενναῖον ἐν αὐτοῖς μόριον. ὁρῶ- 
μεν: οὐ γὰρ μόνον τῷ φαρμακευτικῷ χρῶνται, 
χελῶναι μὲν ὀρίγανον γαλαῖ δὲ πήγανον, ὅταν 
ὄφεως φάγωσιν, ἐπεσθίουσαι:" κύνες δὲ πόᾳ τινὶ 
καθαίροντες ἑαυτοὺς χολεριῶντας" 6 δὲ δράκων τῷ 
μαράθρῳ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἀμβλυώττοντα λεπτύνων 
καὶ διαχαράττων' ἡ δ᾽ ἄρκτος, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ φωλεοῦ 
προέλθῃ, τὸ ἄρον ἐσθίουσα πρῶτον τὸ ἄγριον" ἡ 
γὰρ δριμύτης ἀνοίγει συμπεφυκὸς" αὐτῆς τὸ ἔντε- 
pov: ἄλλως δ᾽ ἀσώδης γενομένη πρὸς τὰς μυρμη- 
κιὰς τρέπεται καὶ κάθηται προβάλλουσα λιπαρὰν 
καὶ μαλακὴν ἰκμάδι γλυκείᾳ τὴν γλῶσσαν, ἄχρις οὗ 

Ο μυρμήκων ἀνάπλεως γένηται: καταπίνουσα γὰρ 


1 ἐν added by Xylander. 
2 συμμεμυκὸς Bernardakis. 


« On this chapter see T. Weidlich, Die Sympathie in 
Altertum, p. 42. 

> Diels-Kranz, Frag. der Vorsok. ii, Ὁ. 173, frag. 1543; cf. 
Bailey on Lucretius, v. 1379 (vol. iii, p. 1540 of his edition) ; 
Aelian, De Natura Animal. xii. 16. 

¢ Cf. 973 a supra. 

¢ As given here, cure by (1) drugs, (2) diet, (3) surgery. 
There are five divisions in Diogenes Laertius, iii. 85; al. 

e Cf. Mor. 918 c, 991 ©; Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 
12 and Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 (612 
a 24); of wounded partridges and storks and doves in 
Aelian, op. cit. v. 46 (Aristotle, op. cit. 612 a 32). 

! Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 (612 a 28). 

406 ᾿ 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 974 


20.7 Yet perhaps it is ridiculous for us to make a 
parade of animals distinguished for learning when 
Democritus ὃ declares that we have been their pupils 
in matters of fundamental importance : of the spider 
in weaving and mending, of the swallow in home- 
building, of the sweet-voiced swan and nightingale ° 
in our imitation of their song. Further, of the three 
divisions of medicine,’ we can discern in animals a 
generous portion of each ; for it is not cure by drugs 
alone of which they make use. After devouring a 
serpent tortoises ὁ take a dessert of marjoram, and 
weasels’ of rue. Dogs’ purge themselves when 
bilious by a certain kind of grass. The snake” 
sharpens and restores its fading sight with fennel. 
When the she-bear comes forth from her lair,? the 
first thing she eats is wild arum?’; for its acridity 
opens her gut which has become constricted. At 
other times, when she suffers from nausea,’ she 
resorts to anthills and sits, holding out her tongue 
all running and juicy with sweet liquor until it is 
covered with ants; these she swallows?’ and is 


9 See Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 
(612 a 6); add Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 
tit: 

» Pliny, Nat. Hist. xx. 254. Other details of snake diet 
in Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. 4. 

+ As in 971 D-E supra. 

7 Probably the Adam-and-Eve (Arum maculatum L.), 
since the Italian arum (Arum italicum Mill.) was cultivated. 
See Aristotle, Historia Animal. viii. 17 (600 b 11); ix. 6 
(611 b 34); Pliny, Wat. Hist. viii. 129; Aelian, De Natura 
Animal, vi. 8. Oribasius (Coll, Med. iii. 24. 5) characterizes 
wild arum as an aperient. 

k When she has swallowed the fruit of the mandrake, 
according to Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 101. 

t Aristotle, Historia Animal. viii. 4 (594 Ὁ 9); Aelian, De 
Natura Animal, vi. 3; Sextus Empiricus, op. cit. i. 57. 


4.07 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(974) ὠφελεῖται. τῆς τ᾽ ἴβεως τὸν ὑποκλυσμὸν ἅλμῃ 
καθαιρομένης Αἰγύπτιοι συνιδεῖν καὶ μιμήσασθαι 
λέγουσιν: οἱ δ᾽ ἱερεῖς ὕδατι χρῶνται, περιαγνίζοντες 
ἑαυτούς, ἐξ οὗ πέπωκεν [Bis ἂν γὰρ 7) φαρμακῶδες 
ἢ νοσηρὸν ἄλλως τὸ ὕδωρ, οὐ πρόσεισιν. 

᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τροφῆς ἀποσχέσει ἔνια θεραπεύεται," 
καθάπερ λύκοι καὶ λέοντες, ὅταν κρεῶν γένωνται 
διακορεῖς, ἡσυχίαν ἄγουσι κατακείμενοι καὶ συν- 
θάλποντες ἑαυτούς. τίγριν δέ φασιν, ἐρίφου παρα- 
δοθέντος αὐτῇ, χρωμένην διαίτῃ μὴ φαγεῖν ἐφ᾽ 
ἡμέρας δύο, τῇ δὲ τρίτῃ πεινῶσαν αἰτεῖν ἄλλο καὶ 

D τὴν γαλεάγραν σπαράσσειν: ἐκείνου δὲ φείσασθαι 
οἰομένην σύντροφον ἔχειν ἤδη καὶ σύνοικον. 

Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ χειρουργίᾳ χρῆσθαι τοὺς ἐλέ- 
φαντας ἱστοροῦσι: καὶ γὰρ ξυστὰ καὶ λόγχας καὶ 
τοξεύματα, παριστάμενοι τοῖς τετρωμένοις, ἄνευ 
σπαραγμοῦ ῥᾳδίως καὶ ἀβλαβῶς ἐξέλκουσιν. at δὲ 
Κρητικαὶ αἶγες, ὅταν τὸ δίκταμνον φάγωσιν, ἐκ- 
βάλλουσαι τὰ τοξεύματα ῥᾳδίως καταμαθεῖν ταῖς 
ἐγκύοις τὴν βοτάνην παρέσχον ἐκτρωτικὴν δύναμιν 
ἔχουσαν: ἐπ᾽ οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο τρωθεῖσαι φέρονται 
καὶ ζητοῦσι καὶ διώκουσιν 7° τὸ δίκταμνον. 


1 θεραπεύεται Bernardakis: θεραπεύονται. 
* A short lacuna is probable here. 
3 διώκουσιν ἢ Reiske: διώκουσι. 


Y 


2 Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. ii. 35; vii. 45; Pliny, 
Nat, Hist. viii. 97 ; Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 50. 

ὃ Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. iv. 15; see the hippo- 
potamus in Amm. Mare. xx. 15. 23. 

© Of a leopard in Aelian, De Natura Animal. vi. ἢ, This 
account seems to indicate a lacuna in our text explaining why 


408 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 974 


alleviated. The Egyptians 5 declare that they have 
observed and imitated the ibis’ clyster-like purging 
of herself with brine ; and the priests make use of 
water from which an ibis has drunk to purify them- 
selves ; for if the water is tainted or unhealthy in 
any way, the ibis will not approach it. 

Then, too, some beasts cure themselves by a short 
fast, like wolves ὃ and lions who, when they are sur- 
feited with flesh, lie still for a while, basking in the 
sun. And they say a tigress, if a kid is given her, 
will keep fasting for two days without eating; on 
the third, she grows hungry and asks for some 
other food. She will even pull her cage to pieces, 
but will not touch the kid which she has now come 
to regard as a fellow-boarder and room mate.¢ 

Yet again, they relate that elephants employ 
surgery : they do, in fact, bring aid to the wounded? 
by easily and harmlessly drawing out spears and 
javelins and arrows without any laceration of the 
flesh. And Cretan goats,’ when they eat dittany, 
easily expel arrows from their bodies and so have 
presented an easy lesson for women with child to 
take to heart, that the herb has an abortive property 9; 
for there is nothing except dittany that the goats, 
when they are wounded, rush to search for. 
the tigress did not eat the kid in the first place: ‘‘ because 
she had already had enough to eat.” 

4 For an example see the anecdote of Porus in 970 b 
supra, 977 B infra; Juba, frag. 52 (Jacoby); Aelian, De 
Natura Animal, vii. 45. 

ὁ Cf.991 F infra; Philo, 38 (p. 119); Vergil, den. xii. 415; 
Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 (612 a 3); 
Pease, Mélanges Marouzeau, 1948, p. 472. 

7 Cretan dittany (Origanum dictamnus L.); Pliny, Nat. 


Mist. xx. 156. 
9 Cf. Pease, op. cit. p. 471. 


409 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(974) 21. “Hrrov δὲ ταῦτα θαυμαστά, καίπερ ὄντα 
ὔ ~ ~ 
θαυμάσια, ποιοῦσιν at νόησιν ἀριθμοῦ Kat δύναμιν 
E τοῦ ἀριθμεῖν ἔχουσαι φύσεις, ὥσπερ ἔχουσιν αἱ 
\ ~ , ΨΦΑ \ > / \ ‘ 
περὶ Σοῦσα βόες: εἰσὶ yap αὐτόθι τὸν βασιλικὸν 
παράδεισον ἄρδουσαι περιάκτοις ἀντλήμασιν, ὧν 
ὥρισται τὸ πλῆθος: ἑκατὸν γὰρ ἑκάστη βοῦς ἀνα- 
/ > ¢ / 6 / > , / > 
φέρει καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἑκάστην avtAnpata: πλείονα ὃ 
> ” ” ois PE) + / / 
οὐκ ἔστιν οὔτε λαβεῖν' οὔτε βιάσασθαι βουλόμενον" 
> \ \ / -“ / / ς 
ἀλλὰ καὶ πείρας ἕνεκα πολλάκις προστιθέντων, ὑφ- 
ίσταται καὶ οὐ πρόεισιν, ἀποδοῦσα τὸ τεταγμέ- 
νον" οὕτως ἀκριβῶς συντίθησι καὶ καταμνημονεύει 
\ / e / ς / ¢ / 
τὸ κεφάλαιον, ws Κτησίας ὁ Κνίδιος ἱστόρηκε. 
Λίβυες δ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων καταγελῶσι μυθολογούντων 
~ \ > / ¢ / > / 
F περὶ τοῦ ὄρυγος, ὡς φωνὴν ἀφιέντος ἡμέρας ἐκείνης 
‘he - > , aes; a Ἔ > \ 
Kal ὥρας ἧς ἐπιτέλλει TO ἄστρον, ὃ Σῶθιν αὐτοὶ 
A ~ a. ~ 
Κύνα δὲ καὶ Σείριον ἡμεῖς καλοῦμεν: Tas γοῦν" ὁμοῦ 
ε / \ 
Tu πάσας αἶγας, ὅταν ἀνάσχῃ μεθ᾽ ἡλίου τὸ ἄστρον 
- “- / \ \ 
ἀτρεκῶς, ἐκεῖ" στρεφομένας ἀποβλέπειν πρὸς τὴν 
/ ~ ΄- / 
ἀνατολήν: Kal τεκμήριον. τοῦτο τῆς περιόδου 
βεβαιότατον εἶναι καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς 
/ 
κανόσιν ὁμολογούμενον. 
5 \ ¢ - 
975 22. Ἵνα δὲ κορυφὴν ὁ λόγος ἐπιθεὶς εαυτῷ 
παύσηται, φέρε κινήσαντες τὴν ἀφ᾽ ἱερᾶς βραχέα 
> 
περὶ θειότητος αὐτῶν Kal μαντικῆς εἴπωμεν. οὐ 
1 λαβεῖν] λαθεῖν Meziriacus. 
2 γοῦν W.C. Η. : γὰρ αὐτῶν. 
3 τὶ added by Bernardakis. 


4 ἐκεῖ early editors: ἔχει. 


® Of, Aelian, De Natura Animal. iv. 53. 
ὃ Frag. 53b, ed. Gilmore (p. 196); cf. Aelian, De Natura 
Animal, vii. 1. 


410 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 974-975 


21. These matters, though wonderful, are less sur- 
prising than are those creatures which have cognition 
of number and can count,@ as do the cattle near Susa. 
At that place they irrigate the royal park with water 
raised in buckets by wheels, and the number of 
bucketfuls is prescribed. For each cow raises one 
hundred bucketfuls each day, and more you could 
not get from her, even if you wanted to use force. 
In fact, they often try to add to the number to see; 
but the cow balks and will not continue when once 
she has delivered her quota, so accurately does she 
compute and remember the sum, as Ctesias ὃ of 
Cnidus has related. 

The Libyans laugh at the Egyptians for telling a 
fabulous tale about the oryx,¢ that it lets out a ery ὁ 
at that very day and hour when the star rises that 
they call Sothis,? which we call the Dog Star or 
Sirius. At any rate, when this star rises flush with 
the sun, practically all the goats turn about and look 
toward the east; and this is the most certain sign 
of its return and agrees most exactly with the tables 
of mathematical calculation.’ 

22. But that my discourse may add its finishing 
touch and terminate, let me “ make the move from 
the sacred line 5 and say a few words about the 
divine inspiration and the mantic power of animals. 

¢ See Mair on Oppian, Cyn. ii. 446. 

4 A sneeze, according to Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 107; Aelian, 
De Natura Animal. vii. 8. 

¢ Cf. Mor. 359 a 3764. 

7 They watched for the first sight of Sirius before daybreak 
about June 20; the date shifted in the Egyptian calendar. 

9 See Mor. 783 8 with Fowler’s note; also 1116 £; Plato, 
Laws, 739 4; and Gow on Theocritus, vi. 18. The meaning 


is probably something like ὁ let me play my last trump,”’ or 
κε commit my last reserve.” 


411 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


(975) yap τι μικρὸν οὐδ᾽ ἄδοξον, ἀλλὰ πολὺ καὶ παμπά- 
λαιον μαντικῆς μόριον οἰωνιστικὴ κέκληται: τὸ γὰρ 
ὀξὺ καὶ νοερὸν αὐτῶν καὶ dv εὐστροφίαν ὑπήκοον 

τ ~ ~ 
ἁπάσης φαντασίας ὥσπερ ὀργάνῳ" τῷ θεῷ παρέχει 
~~ » 
χρῆσθαι καὶ τρέπειν ἐπί τε κίνησιν ἐπί τε φωνὰς 
/ ~ > ~ 
Kal γηρύματα Kal σχήματα νῦν μὲν ἐνστατικὰ νῦν 
δὲ φορὰ καθάπερ πνεύματα τὰς" μὲν ἐπικόπτοντα 
\ > > / / \ «ε A Ψ \ / 
τὰς δ᾽ ἐπευθύνοντα πράξεις Kal ὁρμὰς εἰς TO τέλος. 
\ ~ \ ¢ » / ΠῚ ~ / ” > 
B διὸ κοινῇ μὲν ὁ Εὐριπίδης “᾿ θεῶν κήρυκας ᾿᾿ ovo- 
/ \ y+ > / / € / 
paler τοὺς ὄρνιθας: ἰδίᾳ δέ φησιν ὁ Σωκράτης 
ce ¢ / ᾽}) ¢€ \ A ce ~ / 72 
ὁμόδουλον ᾿᾿ ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖσθαι “᾿ τῶν κύκνων ᾿᾿" 
σ΄“ Ss \ ~ / > \ \ € / 
ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἀετὸς μὲν ὁ [Πύρρος 
ς 5 > ~ 
ἥδετο καλούμενος, ἱέραξ δ᾽ ὁ ᾿Αντίοχος" ἰχθῦς de 
- >) ~ 
τοὺς ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀνοήτους λοιδοροῦντες ἢ" σκώ- 
7 \ / 
πτοντες ὀνομάζομεν. ἀλλὰ δὴ μυρίων μυριάκις 
εἰπεῖν παρόντων, ἃ προδείκνυσιν ἡμῖν καὶ προ- 
\ ~ ~ “a 
σημαίνει τὰ πεζὰ καὶ πτηνὰ Tapa τῶν θεῶν, ἕν 
οὐκ ἔστι τοιοῦτον ἀποφῆναι τῷ προδικοῦντι τῶν 
» / 5 \ \ / \ \ ~ / 
ἐνύδρων, ἀλλὰ κωφὰ πάντα Kat τυφλὰ τῆς προνοίας 
εἰς τὸν ἄθεον καὶ τιτανικὸν ἀπέρριπται τόπον" 
ὥσπερ ἀσεβῶν χῶρον, οὗ τὸ λογικὸν καὶ νοερὸν 
wn ~ / 
( ἐγκατέσβεσται THs ψυχῆς, ἐσχάτῳ δέ τινι συμπε- 
1 ὄργανον Reiske. 
2 ras μὲν. .. τὰς δὲ Wyttenbach: ταῖς pev. . . ταῖς de. 
3 ἢ] μᾶλλον ἢ Reiske. 
4 τόπον] πόντον W. C. Η. 





α Ornithoscopy or ornithomancy (ef. Leviticus xix. 26) ; 
Latin augurium, auspicium. See also Plato, Phaedrus, 244 τ), 
Phaedo, 85 B. 

ὃ Perhaps Jon, 159; cf. also Mor. 405 p for the phrase. 


412 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 975 


It is, in fact, no small or ignoble division of divination, 
but a great and very ancient one, which takes its 
name from birds “; for their quickness of apprehen- 
sion and their habit of responding to any manifesta- 
tion, so easily are they diverted, serves as an instru- 
ment for the god, who directs their movements, their 
calls or cries, and their formations which are some- 
times contrary, sometimes favouring, as winds are; 
so that he uses some birds to cut short, others to speed 
enterprises and inceptions to the destined end. It is 
for this reason that Euripides ὃ calls birds in general 
“heralds of the gods ”’; and, in particular, Socrates ¢ 
says that he considers himself a “ fellow-slave of the 
swans. So again, among monarchs Pyrrhus ὦ liked 
to be called an Eagle and Antiochus ὁ a Hawk. But 
when we deride, or rail at, stupid and ignorant 
people we call them “ fish.”” Really, we can produce 
eases by the thousand of signs and portents mani- 
fested to us by the gods through creatures of land 
and air, but not one such can the advocate for 
aquatic creatures name.’ No, they are all “ deaf 
and blind’ ”’ so far as foreseeing anything goes, and 
so have been cast aside into the godless and titanic” 
region, as into a Limbo of the Unblessed, where the 
rational and intelligent part of the soul has been 
extinguished. Having, however, only a last remnant 


¢ Plato, Phaedo, 85 B. 

4 Cf. Mor. 184 Ὁ: Life of Pyrrhus, x. 1 (388 -s); Life 
of Aristides, vi. 2 (322 a); Aelian, De Natura Animal. vii. 45. 

¢ Cf. Mor. 1844. This Antiochus was not, strictly speak- 
MES a king, but the younger son of Antiochus II. 

f This charge is answered in 976 c infra. 

9 Of. the fragment of Epicharmus cited above in 961 a. 

h Cf. Plato, Laws, 701 s-c (and Shorey, What Plato Said, 

. 629}: 942 4 supra and Cherniss’ note (Class. Phil. xlvi, 
1951, p. 157, n. 95); see also 996 c infra with the note. 


413 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


O7F / \ λ / > θ / / 
(975) φυρμένης καὶ κατακεκλυσμένης αἰσθήσεως μορίῳ, 
σπαίρουσι μᾶλλον ἢ ζῶσιν ἔοικεν. 

23. HPAKAEQN. ᾿Αναγε τὰς ὀφρῦς, ὦ φίλε Φαί- 
διμε, καὶ διέγειρε σεαυτὸν ἡμῖν τοῖς ἐνάλοις καὶ 
νησιώταις" οὐ παιδιὰ τὸ χρῆμα τοῦ λόγου γέγονεν, 
3 > >? / > \ \ ε / / > 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐρρωμένος ἀγὼν Kal ῥητορεία κιγκλίδων ἐπι- 
δέουσα καὶ βήματος. 

ΦΑΙΔΙΜΟΣ. ᾿Κνέδρα μὲν οὖν, ὦ Ἡρακλέων, σὺν 

/ Ψ ~ \ μὴ \ ψν 
δόλῳ καταφανής: κραιπαλῶσι γὰρ ἔτι τὸ χθιζὸν 
καὶ βεβαπτισμένοις νήφων, ὡς ὁρᾷς, ὁ γενναῖος 
ἐκ παρασκευῆς ἐπιτέθειται. παραιτεῖσθαι δ᾽ οὐκ 
” > \ / / \ Ἅ 
ἔστιν: οὐ γὰρ βούλομαι [Πινδάρου ζηλωτὴς ὧν 
ἀκοῦσαι τὸ 


D τιθεμένων ἀγώνων πρόφασις 
3 \ > ᾽ \ ” / 
ἀρετὰν ἐς αἰπὺν ἔβαλε σκότον. 


\ \ \ \ , 1 0. σ᾿ ΝΟ , 

σχολὴ μὲν yap πολλὴ πάρεστιν' ἡμῖν, ἀργούντων 

> , 3 9 \ A 4 ὦ \ , \ 
οὐ λόγων" ἀλλὰ κυνῶν καὶ ἵππων καὶ δικτύου Kal 
πάσης σαγήνης, διὰ τοὺς λόγους ἐκεχειρίας κοινῇ 
πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις κατά τε γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν 

/ \ / > \ \ ~ / 

δεδομένης TO σήμερον. ἀλλὰ μὴ φοβηθῆτε: χρή- 
σομαι γὰρ αὐτῇ μετρίως, οὔτε δόξας φιλοσόφων 

wv 3 >’ / 50 ἊΝ > > / > ~ 
οὔτ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων μύθους οὔτ᾽ ἀμαρτύρους ᾿Ϊνδῶν 
> / a“ / i é “ \ ~ 
ἐπαγόμενος ἢ Λιβύων διηγήσεις: a δὲ πανταχοῦ 

1 σχολὴ μὲν γὰρ πολλὴ πάρεστιν Bernardakis: σχολὴ μὲν 
οὖν πολλὴ γὰρ ἔστιν. 

2 ἡμν W.C. H.: dpiv. 

3 λόγων Wyttenbach: χορῶν. 





4 That is, it is so realistic that one might imagine oneself 
in the laweourts or the public assembly. 


4.14 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 975 


of sensation that is clogged with mud and deluged 
with water, they seem to be at their last gasp. rather 
than alive. 

23. HERACLEON. Raise your brows, dear Phaedi- 
mus, and rouse yourself to defend us the sea folk, the 
island-dwellers ! This bout of argument has become 
no child’s play, but a hard-fought contest, a debate 
which lacks only the actual bar and platform.* 

PHAEDIMus. Not so, Heracleon, but an ambush 
laid with malice aforethought has been disclosed. 
While we are still tipsy and soused from yesterday's 
bout, this gentleman, as you see, has attacked us 
with premeditation, cold sober. Yet there can be 
no begging off. Devotee of Pindar ὃ though I am, I 
do not want to be addressed with the quotation 


To excuse oneself when combat is offered 
Has consigned valour to deep obscurity ; 


for we have much leisure °; and it is not our discourse 
that will be idle, but our dogs and horses, our nets and 
seines of all kinds, for a truce is granted for to-day 
because of our argument to every creature both on 
land and sea. Yet do not fear: I shall use it 4 with 
moderation, introducing no opinions of philosophers 
or Egyptian fables or unattested tales of Indians or 
Libyans. But those facts that may be observed 


ὃ Frag. 272, ed. Turyn (228 Schroeder, 215 Bowra); cf. 
Mor. 783 8; Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroemiographi 
Graeci, i, p. 44; Plato, Cratylus, 421 τ. 

¢ Perhaps merely a passing allusion to some such passage 
as Plato, Phaedrus, 258 © rather than, as Bernardakis 
thought, a quotation from an unknown tragic poet (Nauck, 
Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 869, Adesp. 138). 

4 Rither “‘ our leisure’ or “ the truce,” 1.6. the holiday 
Plutarch has given his pupils (see the Introduction to this 
essay). 


415 


(975) 


33: 


910 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


/ ” \ > ,ὔ \ / 
μάρτυρας ἔχει τοὺς ἐργαζομένους τὴν θάλατταν 
« / \ / ~ ww / 7, Δ 
ὁρώμενα καὶ δίδωσι τῇ ὄψει πίστιν, τούτων ὀλίγα 


| παραθήσομαι. καίτοι τῶν μὲν' ἐν γῇ παραδειγμά- 


> ~ > / > > > > / 
των ἐπιπροσθοῦν οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνεῳγμένη 
/ lan > / \ ¢ / ¢ \ / 
παρέχει TH αἰσθήσει τὴν ἱστορίαν: ἡ δὲ θάλασσα 
\ A \ / / ~ \ / 

μικρὰ κατιδεῖν καὶ γλίσχρα δίδωσι, τῶν δὲ πλεί- 
στων κατακαλύπτει γενέσεις καὶ τροφὰς ἐπιθέσεις 
τε καὶ φυλακὰς ἀλλήλων, ἐν αἷς οὐκ ὀλίγα καὶ 
συνέσεως ἔργα καὶ μνήμης καὶ κοινωνίας ἀγνοού- 

/ \ / ” \ \ > ~ \ 
μενα βλάπτει τὸν λόγον. ἔπειτα τὰ μὲν ev γῇ διὰ 
τὴν ὁμοφυλίαν καὶ τὴν συνδιαίτησιν ἁμωσγέπως 
συναναχρωννύμενα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἤθεσιν ἀπο- 

~ Va 
Aaver καὶ τροφῆς καὶ διδασκαλίας καὶ μιμήσεως: 
σ 
ἣ τὸ μὲν πικρὸν ἅπαν καὶ σκυθρωπὸν ὥσπερ ἐπι- 
/ 
μιξία ποτίμου θάλασσαν ἐφηδύνει, τὸ δὲ δυσξύνε- 
¢ / A 
Tov’ ἅπαν καὶ νωθρὸν ἐπεγείρει ταῖς μετ᾽ ἀνθρώπων 
κοινωνήσεσιν" ἀναρριπιζόμενον. 6 δὲ τῶν ἐνάλων 
βίος ὅροις μεγάλοις τῆς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἀπῳκισ- 
/ € Ad > / oe oY Q / 
μένος ὁμιλίας ἐπείσακτον οὐδὲν οὐδὲ συνειθισμένον 
” ” ’ὔ > \ > \ \ ΝΜ > 
ἔχων ἴδιός ἐστι καὶ αὐθιγενὴς καὶ ἄκρατος ἀλλο- 
/ ” \ \ / ᾽ \ \ / « \ 
τρίοις ἤθεσι διὰ TOV τόπον, οὐ διὰ τὴν φύσιν. ἡ γὰρ 
/ “ 2 “A / pa Re - \ 
φύσις ὅσον ἐξικνεῖται μαθήσεως ἐφ᾽ αὑτὴν dexo- 
\ >? 
μένη Kal στέγουσα παρέχει πολλὰς μὲν ἐγχέλεις 
7 σ ¢ \ / / 
ἀνθρώποις χειροήθεις, ὥσπερ τὸς ἱερὰς λέγομένας" 
> mid / ~ > ᾿] ~ ¢ / 
ev τῇ ᾿Αρεθούσῃ, πολλαχοῦ δ᾽ ἰχθῦς ὑπακούοντας 
1 μὲν added by W. C. Η. 


2 δυσξύνετον Reiske: δυσξύνθετον. 
3 κοινωνήσεσιν Emperius : κινήσεσιν. 


416 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 975-976 


everywhere and have as witnesses the men who 
exploit the sea and acquire their credit from direct 
observation, of these I shall present a few. Yet there 
is nothing to impede illustrations drawn from land 
animals : the land is wide open for investigation by 
the senses. The sea, on the other hand, grants us 
but a few dubious glimpses. She draws a veil over 
the birth and growth, the attacks and reciprocal 
defences, of most of her denizens. Among these 
there are no few feats of intelligence and memory 
and community spirit that remain unknown to us 
and so obstruct our argument. Then too, land 
animals “ by reason of their close relationship and 
their cohabitation have to some extent been imbued 
with human manners; they have the advantage of 
their breeding and teaching and imitation, which 
sweetens all their bitterness and sullenness, like 
fresh water mixed with brine, while their lack of 
understanding and dullness are roused to life by 
human contacts. Whereas the life of sea creatures, 
being set apart by mighty bounds from intercourse 
with men and having nothing adventitious or ac- 
quired from human usage, is peculiar to itself, in- 
digenous, and uncontaminated by foreign ways, not 
by distinction of Nature, but of location. For their 
Nature is such as to welcome and retain such instruc- 
tion as reaches them. This it is that renders many 
eels tractable, like those that are called sacred in 
Arethusa 8; and in many places there are fish which 


= Cf. Pliny, Wat. Hist.1x. 1. 
’ Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. viii. 4. 


4 ἱερὰς λεγομένας follows ἐγχέλεις in the Mss. ; transferred 
here by Kaltwasser. 


VOL. XII P 417 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


« ~ > / σ \ / / 
(976) αὑτῶν ονόμασιν: ὥσπερ τὴν Κράσσου μυραιναν 
« ~ e > 
ἱστοροῦσιν, ἧς ἀποθανούσης ἔκλαυσεν ὁ Kpaaaos: 
/ / 
καὶ ποτε Δομετίου πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπόντος, “᾿ οὐ σὺ 
’ > / , 
μυραίΐνης ἀποθανούσης ἔκλαυσας ;᾿᾿ ἀπήντησεν, 
‘ ᾽ \ ~ / - 
οὐ σὺ τρεῖς θάψας γυναῖκας οὐκ ἐδάκρυσας ; ᾽᾿ 
¢ \ ~ 
Οἱ δὲ κροκόδειλοι τῶν ἱερέων οὐ μόνον γνωρί- 
\ \ an 
B ζουσι τὴν φωνὴν καλούντων καὶ τὴν ψαῦσιν ὑπο- 
/ 
μένουσιν, ἀλλὰ Kai διαχανόντες παρέχουσι τοὺς 
> / > - 
ὀδόντας ἐκκαθαίρειν ταῖς χερσὶ καὶ περιμάττειν 
0 / ” \ ~ ¢ / -“ 
ὀθονίοις. ἔναγχος δὲ Φιλῖνος ὁ βέλτιστος ἥκων 
/ 2 > / ~ A 
πεπλανημένος ev Αἰγύπτῳ παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς διηγεῖτο 
~ > - > > / / / 
γραῦν ἰδεῖν ev ᾿Ανταίου πόλει KpoKodeiAw συγκαθ- 
/ Βι τ or 
evoovoay ἐπὶ σκίμποδος εὖ μάλα κοσμίως παρεκ- 
τεταμένῳ. 
ε ~ / ~ / 
Πάλαι δ᾽ ἱστοροῦσι, ἸΪτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως 
\ 7 
παρακαλουμένου, TOV ἱερὸν κροκόδειλον μὴ ἐπακού- 
σαντα μηδὲ πεισθέντα λιπαροῦντι καὶ δεομένῳ" 
a“ ~ \ > \ 
τοῖς ἱερεῦσι δόξαι προσημαίνειν τὴν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ 
“ ~ ~ / σ \ ~ 
C συμβᾶσαν αὐτῷ τοῦ βίου τελευτήν: ὥστε μηδὲ τῆς 
~ ~ > 
πολυτιμήτου μαντικῆς ἄμοιρον εἶναι TO τῶν ἐν- 
> \ ~ 
vdpwv γένος μηδ᾽ ἀγέραστον: ἐπεὶ Kal περὶ Lodpav 
7, / 2 ~ / Φέλλ \ 
πυνθάνομαι, κώμην ev τῇ Λυκίᾳ Φέλλου μεταξὺ 
eae Wye , ee ͵ “ > 
καὶ Mipwv, καθεζομένους ἐπ᾽ ἰχθύσιν ὥσπερ οἰω- 


1 λιπαροῦντι καὶ δεομένῳ Reiske : λιπαροῦσι καὶ δεομένοις. 





« Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 193: Aelian, De Natura 
Animal, xii. 30. 

> Not in the Life of Crassus, but derived from the same 
source as Aelian, De Natura Animal. viii. 4.; cf. the remarks 
in the Life of Solon, vii. 4(82 a). The story is also recounted 
in Mor. 89 a, 811 a; Macrobius, Sat. iii, 15. 4; Porphyry, 


418 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 976 


will respond to their own names,’ as the story goes 
of Crassus’ ὃ moray, upon the death of which he 
wept. And once when Domitius ¢ said to him, “ Isn’t 
it true that you wept when a moray died?”’ he 
answered, “ Isn't it true that you buried three wives 
and didn’t weep?” 

The priests’ crocodiles ὦ not only recognize the 
voice of those who summon them and allow them- 
selves to be handled, but open their mouths to let 
their teeth be cleaned by hand and wiped with 
towels. Recently our excellent Philinus came back 
from a trip to Egypt and told us that he had seen in 
Antaeopolis an old woman sleeping on a low bed 
beside a crocodile, which was stretched out beside 
her in a perfectly decorous way. 

They have long been telling the tale that when 
King Ptolemy ° summoned the sacred crocodile and 
it would not heed him or obey in spite of his entreaties 
and requests, it seemed to the priests an omen of his 
death, which came about not long after ; whence it 
appears that the race of water creatures is not wholly 
unendowed with your precious gift of divination.’ 
Indeed, I have heard that near Sura,’ a village in 
Lycia between Phellus and Myra, men sit and watch 
the gyrations and flights and pursuits of fish and 


De Abstinentia, iii. 5. Hortensius, too, wept bitterly at the 
death of his pet moray (Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 172). 

4Τ, Domitius Ahenobarbus, consul in 54 B.c., a bitter 
political opponent of Crassus and the Triumvirate. 

@ Cf. Aelian, loc. cit. 

€ Aelian, loc. cit., does not know which Ptolemy is meant ; 
cf. the story of Apis and Germanicus in Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 
185; Amm. Mare. xxii. 14. 8. 

* Cf. 975 B supra; Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 55. 

9 Aelian, De Natura Animal. viii. 5; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 
ΧΧΧΗ ΜῈ 


419 


(976) 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


vois διαμαντεύεσθαι τέχνῃ τινὶ καὶ λόγῳ ἑλίξεις" 
καὶ φυγὰς καὶ διώξεις αὐτῶν ἐπισκοποῦντας. 

24. ᾿Αλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἔστω τοῦ μὴ παντάπασιν 
ἐκφύλου μηδ᾽ ἀσυμπαθοῦς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἱκανὰ δείγ- 
ματα: τῆς δ᾽ ἀκράτου καὶ φυσικῆς συνέσεως μέγα 
δήλωμα τὸ ὀκνηρόν" ἐστιν" οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως εὐχεί- 
ρωτον ἀνθρώπῳ νηκτόν, δ᾽ μὴ πέτραις προσέχεται 
καὶ προσπέφυκεν, οὐδ᾽ ἁλώσιμον a ἄνευ πραγματείας, 
ὡς λύκοις μὲν ὄνοι καὶ μέροψι μέλισσαι, χελιδόσι 
δὲ τέττιγες, “ἐλάφοις δ᾽ ὄφεις ἀγόμενοι ῥᾳδίως ὑπ᾽ 
αὐτῶν: 7 καὶ τοὔνομα πεποίηται παρώνυμον οὐ τῆς 
ἐλαφρότητος ἀλλὰ τῆς ἕλξεως τοῦ ὄφεως. καὶ τὸ 
πρόβατον προσκαλεῖται τῷ ποδὶ τὸν λύκον, τῆ δὲ 
παρδάλει τὰ πλεῖστα προσχωρεῖν χαίροντα τῇ ὀσμῇ, 
μάλιστα δὲ τὸν πίθηκον λέγουσι. τῶν δὲ θαλατ- 
τίων ὁμοῦ τι πάντων ἡ προαίσθησις ὕποπτος οὖσα 
καὶ πεφυλαγμένη πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθέσεις ὑ ὑπὸ συνέσεως, 
οὐχ ἁπλοῦν τὸ τῆς ἄγρας ἔργον οὐδὲ φαῦλον ἀλλ᾽ 
ὀργάνων τε παντοδαπῶν καὶ σοφισμάτων ἐ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ 
δεινῶν καὶ ἀπατηλῶν δεόμενον ἀπείργασται. 

Kai τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἀπὸ τῶν πάνυ προχείρων. 
τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἀσπαλιευτικὸν κάλαμον οὐ βούλονται 
πάχος ἔχειν, καίπερ εὐτόνου δεόμενοι πρὸς τοὺς 
σπαραγμοὺς τῶν ἁλισκομένων, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐκ- 
λέγονται τὸν λεπτόν, ὅπως μὴ πλατεῖαν ἐπιβάλλων 
σκιὰν ἐκταράττῃ τὸ ὕποπτον αὐτῶν. ἔπειτα τὴν 


1 λόγῳ ἑλίξεις Bryan: λόγων λέξεις. 
* ὀκνηρόν Post: κοινόν. 8. 6 Reiske: a. 





@ A bird: Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 13 (615 Ὁ 25); 
Aelian, De Natura Animal. v.11; Pliny, Nat. Hist. x. 99. 

> Aelian, De Natura Animal. villi. 6; ν. 48. 

© Llaphrotes. 


4.20 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 976 


divine from them by a professional and rational 
system, as others do with birds. 

24. But let these examples suffice to show that sea 
animals are not entirely unrelated to us or cut off 
from human fellowship. Of their uncontaminated 
and native intelligence their caution is strong evi- 
dence. For nothing that swims and does not merely 
stick or cling to rocks is easily taken or captured 
without trouble by man as are asses by wolves, bees 
by bee-eaters,* cicadas by swallows, and snakes by 
deer, which easily attract them.? This, in fact, is 
why deer are called elaphor, not from their swiftness,° 
but from their power of attracting snakes.? So too 
the ram draws the wolf by stamping and they say 
that very many creatures, and particularly apes, are 
attracted to the panther by their pleasure in its 
scent. But in practically all sea-creatures any sensa- 
tion is suspect and evokes an intelligently inspired 
defensive reaction against attack, so that fishing has 
been rendered no simple or trivial task, but needs all 
manner of implements and clever and deceitful tricks 
to use against the fish. 

This is perfectly clear from ready examples: no 
one wants to have an angler’s rod too thick, though 
it needs elasticity to withstand the thrashing of such 
fish as are caught ; men select, rather, a slender rod 
so that it may not cast a broad shadow and arouse 
suspicion.’ In the next place, they do not thicken 


4 Helxis opheos, a fantastic etymology. Neither deriva- 
tion is correct, elaphos being related to the Lithuanian elnis, 
“deer.” For the references see Mair on Oppian, Cyn. ii. 
234. 

ὁ See Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 6 
(612 a 13); add Aelian, De Natura Animal, viii. 6; v. 40. 

7 Cf. Gow on Theocritus, xxi. 10, 


4.21 


(976) 


ΒΥ 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ὁρμιὰν ov ποιοῦσι πολύπλοκον τοῖς ἅμμασι τῶν 
/ ᾽ \ aA > \ \ ~ ~ / 
βρόχων οὐδὲ τραχεῖαν: ἐπεὶ Kal τοῦτο τοῦ δόλου 
γίνεται τεκμήριον αὐτοῖς. καὶ τῶν τριχῶν τὰ 
ὔ \ \ ΝΜ ¢ ” / 
καθήκοντα πρὸς TO ἀγκιστρον ws ἔνι μάλιστα 
\ / ~ ~ \ LA > 
λευκὰ φαίνεσθαι μηχανῶνται: μᾶλλον yap οὕτως ἐν 
- / > « / ~ / / 
τῇ θαλάττῃ δι᾿ ὁμοιότητα τῆς χρόας λανθάνουσι. 


\ pe \ ~ ~ / 
τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ λεγόμενον 


ἡ δὲ μολυβδαίνῃ ἰκέλη ἐς βυσσὸν ὄρουσεν, 
σ > > / \ / > a“ 
ἥτε Kat ἀγραύλοιο βοὸς κέρας ἐμβεβαυῖα 


” Ψ ~ ϑῪ or 3 / lo / 
ἔρχεται ὠμηστῇσιν ἐπ᾽ ἰχθύσι κῆρα φέρουσα: 


7 ” / x μὲ \ \ 
παρακούοντες ἔνιοι βοείαις θριξὶν οἴονται πρὸς Tas 
« \ ~ A / cc / ᾽) \ \ 
ὁρμιὰς χρῆσθαι τοὺς παλαιούς" “ κέρας ᾿᾿ yap τὴν 

/ / \ \ / ὃ \ ~ \ \ 
τρίχα λέγεσθαι καὶ TO κείρασθαι διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν 
, \ \ >> , , yy 
κουράν: καὶ Tov παρ᾽ ᾿Αρχιλόχῳ “᾿ κεροπλάστην 
/ \ / \ / 
φιλόκοσμον εἶναι περὶ κόμην Kat καλλωπιστήν. 
ΝΜ > >’ > / ¢ / x \ ~ \ 
ἔστι δ᾽ οὐκ ἀληθές: ἱππείαις yap θριξὶ χρῶνται, Tas 
~ > / A β / ¢ \ θ λ ΄σ ” 
τῶν ἀρρένων λαμβάνοντες" at yap θήλειαι TH οὔρῳ 
\ / / > ~ ~ > / 
τὴν τρίχα βεβρεγμένην ἀδρανῆ ποιοῦσιν. ᾿Αρίστ- 
αρχος" δέ φησι μηδὲν ἐν τούτοις λέγεσθαι σοφὸν 
Ἃ \ LAAG ~ yw / 6 θ \ 
ἢ περιττὸν ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι κεράτιον περιτίθεσθαι πρὸ 
δ ὧν / \ \ ε , > 3 \ ” 
τοῦ ἀγκίστρου περὶ τὴν ὁρμιάν, ἐπεὶ πρὸς ἄλλο 
1 κεροπλάστην Turnebus : κηροπλάστην. 


? *Apiotapxos Platt: ᾿Αριστοτέλης. 
3 ἐπεὶ Jannotius : ἔπειτα. 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 976-977 


the line with many plies when they attach the loop 
and do not make it rough ; for this, too, betrays the 
lure to the fish. They also contrive that the hairs 
which form the leader shall be as white as possible ; 
for in this way they are less conspicuous in the sea 
because of the similarity of colour. The remark of 
the Poet * 


Like lead she ὃ sank into the great sea depths, 
Like lead infixed in horn of rustic ox 
Which brings destruction to the ravenous fish— 


some misunderstand this and imagine that the 
ancients used ox-hair for their lines, alleging that 
keras © means “ hair” and for this reason ketrasthai 
means “‘ to have one’s hair cut’ and koura is a “ hair- 
cut ’@ and the keroplastes® in Archilochus/ is one 
who is fond of trimming and beautifying the hair. 
But this is not so: they use horse-hair which they 
take from males, for mares by wetting the hair with 
their urine make it weak.’ Aristarchus” declares 
that there is nothing erudite or subtle in these lines ; 
the fact is that a small piece of horn was attached 
to the line in front of the hook, since the fish, when 
they are confronted by anything else, chew the line 


* Homer, Jliad, xxiv. 80-82. 

δ Tris going to visit Thetis. 

¢ It means, of course, “‘ horn ἢ as above in Homer, /liad, 
xxiv. 81. 

@ Or “ lock of hair.” 

¢ ** Horn-fashioner,’’ so called from the horn-like bunch- 
ing together of the hair: see the scholia on Jliad, xxiv. 81. 

7 Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus, ii, p. 126, frag. 57 ; Diehl, 
Anth. Lyrica, i, p. 228, frag. 59. See the note on 967 F 
supra. 9 Cf. Mor. 915 r—916 a. 

» Not Aristotle, as the mss. read. See Platt, Class. Quart. 
ν. 255. 


425 


(977) 


B 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


ἐρχόμενοι διεσθίουσι. τῶν δ᾽ ἀγκίστρων τοῖς μὲν 
στρογγύλοις ἐπὶ κεστρέας καὶ ἀμίας χρῶνται 
μικροστόμους ὄντας: τὸ γὰρ εὐρύτερον' εὐλα- 
βοῦνται: πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τὸ στρογγύλον ὁ κεστρεὺς 
ὑποπτεύων ἐν κύκλῳ περινήχεται, τῇ οὐρᾷ περιρ- 
ραπίζων τὸ ἐδώδιμον καὶ ἀνακάπτων᾽" τὸ ἀπο- 
κρουόμενον"- ἂν δὲ μὴ δύνηται, συναγαγὼν" τὸ 
στόμα καὶ περιστείλας, τοῖς χείλεσιν ἄκροις ἐπι- 
ψαύων ἀποκνίζει τοῦ δελέατος. 

ὋὉ δὲ λάβραξ, ἀνδρικώτερον τοῦ ἐλέφαντος οὐχ 
ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτόν, ὅταν περιπέσῃ τῷ ἀγ- 
κίστρῳ, βελουλκεῖ, τῇ δεῦρο κἀκεῖ παραλλάξει τῆς 
κεφαλῆς ἀνευρύνων τὸ "τραῦμα καὶ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ 
σπαραγμοῦ πόνον ὑπομένων, ἄχρις ἂν ἐκβάλῃ τὸ 
ἄγκιστρον. ἡ δ᾽ ἀλώπηξ οὐ πολλάκις μὲν ἀγκίστρῳ 
πρόσεισιν ἀλλὰ φεύγει τὸν δόλον, ἁλοῦσα δ᾽ εὐθὺς 
ἐκτρέπεται" πέφυκε γὰρ δι᾿ εὐτονίαν καὶ ὑγρότητα 
μεταβάλλειν τὸ σῶμα καὶ στρέφειν, ὥστε τῶν 
ἐντὸς ἐκτὸς γενομένων ἀποπίπτειν τὸ ἄγκιστρον. 

25. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν γνῶσιν ἐμφαίνει καὶ χρῆσιν 
ἐπὶ καιρῷ τοῦ συμφέροντος εὐμήχανον καὶ περιττήν᾽ 


= εὐρύτερον Reiske : εὐθύτερον. 
5 ἀνακάπτων Grynaeus : : ἀνακάμπτων. 
ἀποκρεμαννύμενον Reiske ; Ε ἀποκρεμάμενον Bernardakis. 
4 συναγαγὼν Bernardakis : συνάγων. 


3 





« “ The section of horn was put around the line. It was 
therefore a tube. It was in front of the hook as one held it 
in his hand and attached it to the line. It was therefore at 
the hook end of the leader. Its hardness prevented the line 
from being severed. Its neutral coloration prevented the 
fish from being frightened off. Note that Oppian (//al. iii. 
147) comments on the use of a hook with an abnormally 
long shank for the same purpose “ἢ (Andrews). 


424. 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 977 


in two.” They use rounded hooks ὃ to catch mullets 
and bonitos, whose mouths are small ¢; for they are 
wary of a broader hook. Often, indeed, the mullet 
suspects even a rounded hook and swims around it, 
flipping the bait with its tail and snatching up bits 
it has dislodged ; or if it cannot do this, it closes its 
mouth and purses it up and with the tips of its lips 
nibbles away at the bait.4 

The sea-bass is braver than your elephant? : it is 
not from another, but from himself without assistance, 
that he extracts the barb when he is caught by the 
hook ; he swings his head from side to side to widen 
the wound, enduring the pain of tearing his flesh until 
he can throw off the hook.’ The fox-shark 2 does not 
often approach the hook and shuns the lure ;_ but if 
he is caught, he immediately turns himself inside 
out, for by reason of the elasticity and flexibility of 
his body he can naturally shift and twist it about, so 
that when he is inside out, the hook falls away. 

25. Now the examples I have given indicate intelli- 
gence and an ingenious, subtle use of it for opportune 


’ A prototype of the Sobey hook. 

¢ See Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. ix. 37 
(621 a 19); Mair on Oppian, Hal. iii. 144. 

@ Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 145; Oppian, Hal. iii. 524 ff. 

¢ Cf. 974 D supra. 

7 Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animal. i. 40, of the tunny ; 
Ovid, Hal. 39 f. and Oppian, Hal. iii. 128 ff., of the bass. 

9 Plutarch seems here to have confused this fish with the 
so-called scolopendra (of which he writes correctly in Mor. 
567 B; see also Mair on Oppian, Hal. ii. 424). Cf. Aristotle, 
Historia Animal. ix. 37 (621 a 11); Aelian, De Natura 
Animal. ix. 12; Varia Hist.i.5; Mair on Oppian, Hal. iii. 
144; Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 145. ‘* There are fish (but not 
sharks) which can disgorge their stomachs and swallow 
them again. Note that hasty reading of Aristotle /.c. could 
easily cause this misstatement ” (Andrews). 


4.25 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


Μ > > / \ ~ ~ \ 

(977) ἄλλα δ᾽ ἐπιδείκνυται μετα TOV συνετοῦ TO κοινω- 
\ \ \ / [2 > / \ / 
νικὸν Kal TO φιλάλληλον, ὥσπερ ἀνθίαι Kai σκάροι. 
σκάρου μὲν γὰρ ἄγκιστρον καταπιόντος, οἵ παρ- 
ὄντες σκάροι προσαλλόμενοι τὴν ὁρμιὰν ἀποτρώ- 
γουσιν" οἱ αὐτοὶ δὲ καὶ τοῖς εἰς κύρτον ἐμπεσοῦσι 

\ > A ’, A a ͵ὕ 
τὰς οὐρὰς παραδόντες ἔξωθεν ἕλκουσι δάκνοντας 
προθύμως καὶ συνεξάγουσιν. οἱ δ᾽ ἀνθίαι τῷ συμ- 
φύλῳ βοηθοῦσιν ἰταμώτερον: τὴν γὰρ ὁρμιὰν ἀνα- 
θέμενοι κατὰ τὴν ῥάχιν καὶ στήσαντες ὀρθὴν τὴν 
Ὁ ἄκανθαν ἐπιχειροῦσι διαπρίειν τῇ τραχύτητι καὶ 
διακόπτειν. 
’ὔ A » \ ” ¢ / / 
Καίτοι χερσαῖον οὐδὲν ἴσμεν ἑτέρῳ κινδυνεύοντι 
τολμῶν ἀμύνειν, οὐκ ἄρκτον οὐ σῦν οὐδὲ λέαιναν 
᾽ \ / > \ A \ > > \ > 
οὐδὲ πάρδαλιν: ἀλλὰ συγχωρεῖ μὲν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἐν 
A / ~ ¢ /, \ / 3 3 ͵ὔ 
τοῖς θεάτροις τὰ ὁμόφυλα καὶ κύκλῳ μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων 
, Cia? 5 ot > > γῶν “Ὁ 
περίεισιν: ἑτέρῳ δ᾽ ἕτερον οὐκ οἶδεν οὐδὲ φρονεῖ 
βοηθεῖν, ἀλλὰ φεύγει καὶ ἀποπηδᾷ πορρωτάτω 
γινόμενα τοῦ τετρωμένου καὶ θνήσκοντος. ἡ δὲ 
τῶν ἐλεφάντων ἱστορία φορυτὸν" εἰς τὰ ὀρύγματα 
φορούντων" καὶ τὸν ὀλισθόντα διὰ χώματος ἀναβι- 
1 of αὐτοὶ Wyttenbach : οὗτοι. 
2 φρονεῖ] φροντίζει Bernardakis. 


3 φορυτὸν Meziriacus: φίλε τῶν. 
4 φορούντων] φορυτὸν συμφορούντων Reiske. 








* The anthias of the above passage is probably the 
Mediterranean barbier, Serranus anthias C.V., although 
elsewhere it is sometimes obviously a much larger fish of 
uncertain identity. On the identification cf. Thompson on 
Aristotle, Historia Animal. vi. 17 (570 b 19); Glossary of 
Greek Fishes, s.v.; Mair, introd, to his ed. of Oppian, pp. 
liii-lxi; Marx, RH, i. 2375-2377; ii. 2415; Schmid, 
Philologus, Suppb. xi, 1907-1910, p. 273; Brands, Grieksche 


426 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 977 


profit ; but there are others that display, in combina- 
tion with understanding, a social sense and mutual 
affection, as is the case with the barbier® and the 
parrot-fish. For if one parrot-fish swallows the hook, 
the others present swarm upon the line and nibble it 
away; and the same fish, when any of their kind 
have fallen into the net, give them their tails from 
outside ; when they eagerly fix their teeth in these, 
the others pull on them and bring them through in 
tow.2 And barbiers are even more strenuous in 
rescuing their fellows: getting under the line with 
their backs, they erect their sharp spines and try to 
saw the line through and cut if off with the rough 
edge 

Yet we know of no land animal that has the courage 
to assist another in danger—not bear or boar or 
lioness or panther. True it is that in the arena those 
of the same kind draw close together and huddle in a 
circle ; yet they have neither knowledge nor desire 
to help each other. Instead, each one flees to get 
as far as possible from a wounded or dying fellow. 
That tale of the elephants ὦ carrying brushwood to 
the pits and giving their fallen comrade a ramp to 


Diernamen, pp. 147 f.; Cotte, Poissons et animaux aqua- 
tiques au temps de Pline, pp. 69-73 ; Saint-Denis, Le Vocabu- 
laire des animaux marins en latin classique, pp. 5-7. Cf. 
also 981 E infra. 

® On this story cf. also Aelian, De Natura Animal. i. 4; 
Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxii. 11; Ovid, Hal. 9 ff.; Oppian, Hal. 
iv. 40 ff. Note also Aelian, De Natura Animal. v. 22, on 
mice. 

& Of.. Pliny, Nat. ‘Histiixt 182 ;> xxi.’ 13; Ovid;“Hal. 
45 ff.; Oppian, Hal. iii. 321 ff. 

4 Cf. 972 B supra; Jacoby, Frag. der griech. Hist. iii, Ὁ. 
146, frag. 51 Ὁ. On the community spirit of elephants see 
also Aelian, De Natura Animal. v. 49; vi. 61; vii. 15; al. 


4.27 


(977) 


EK 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


βαζόντων ἔκτοπός" ἐστι δεινῶς καὶ ἀλλοδαπή, Kat 
/ >? ~ / >? / 
καθάπερ ἐκ βασιλικοῦ διαγράμματος ἐπιτάττουσα 
πιστεύειν αὑτῇ τῶν ᾿Ιόβα βιβλίων: ἀληθὴς δ᾽ οὖσα 
πολλὰ δείκνυσι τῶν ἐνάλων μηδὲν ἀπολειπόμενα 
τῷ κοινωνικῷ καὶ συνετῷ τοῦ σοφωτάτου τῶν 
/ > \ \ / εἰ ~ ” ” 
χερσαίων. ἀλλὰ περὶ κοινωνίας αὐτῶν ἴδιος ἔσται 
/ / 
τάχα λόγος. 
26. Οἱ δ᾽ ἁλιεῖς συνορῶντες ὥσπερ ἀλεξήμασιϊ" 
/ \ ~ / \ Mie | 
παλαισμάτων τὰ πλεῖστα διακρουόμενα τὰς ἀπ 
> / \ 2 ἡ / >? / / ¢ 
ἀγκίστρου βολὰς ἐπὶ βίας ἐτράπησαν, καθάπερ οἱ 
/ / ¢ - ’ A 5 ἃ 
Πέρσαι, σαγηνεύοντες ὡς τοῖς ἐνσχεθεῖσιν οὐδεμίαν 
ἐκ λογισμοῦ καὶ σοφίας διάφευξιν οὖσαν. ἀμῴφι- 
βλήστροις μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὑποχαῖς κεστρεῖς καὶ ἰου- 
/ ς / / / \ \ \ 
Aides ἁλίσκονται, μόρμυροί TE καὶ σαργοὶ Kal 
κωβιοὶ καὶ λάβρακες: τὰ δὲ βολιστικὰ καλούμενα, 


1 ἔκτοπός) ψευδὴς μὲν οὖσα ἔκτοπός Reiske. 
3. ἀλεξήμασι Coraes: ἀδοξήμασι. 





«α« Juba was king of Mauretania (25 B.c.—c. A.D. 23). 

» Cf. Herodotus, vi. 31; iii, 149; Plato, Laws 698 Ὁ: 
Fraenkel on Aesch. Agam. 358. On kinds of nets see Mair, 
L.C.L. Oppian, pp. x1 ff. 

¢ QCoris iulis Gth. Cf. Thompson on Aristotle, Historia 
Animal. ix. 3 (610 b 7); A Glossary of Greek Fishes, Ὁ. 91 ; 
Schmid, op. cit. p. 292; Brands, op. cit. p. 157 ; Cotte, op. 
cit. pp. 59-60 ; Saint-Denis, op. e7t. p. 52. 

4 In particular, probably Pagellus mormyrus C.V. On 
the identification cf. Thompson on Aristotle, Historia 


428 


THE CLEVERNESS OF ANIMALS, 977 


mount is monstrous and far-fetched and dictates, as 
it were, that we are to believe it on a king’s prescrip- 
tion—that is, on the writs of Juba.* Suppose it to 
be true: it merely proves that many sea creatures 
are in no way inferior in community spirit and intelli- 
gence to the wisest of the land animals. As for their 
sociability, I shall soon make a special plea on that 
topic. 

26. Now fishermen, observing that most fish evade 
the striking of the hook by such countermoves as 
wrestlers use, resorted, like the Persians,? to force 
and used the dragnet, since for those caught in it 
there could be no escape with the help of reason or 
cleverness. For mullet and rainbow-wrasse ° are 
caught by casting-nets and round nets, as are also 
the bream 7 and the sargue ὁ and the goby 7 and the 
sea-bass. The so-called net fish, that is surmullet 9 


Animal. vi. 7 (570 Ὁ 20); Glossary, p. 161; Cotte, op. cit. 
pp. 105-107 ; Saint-Denis, op. cit. pp. 65-66. 

ὁ In particular, probably Sargus vulgaris Geoff. On the 
identification cf. Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. 
v. 9 (543 a 7); Glossary, pp. 227-228; Cotte, op. cit. pp. 
104-105 ; Saint-Denis, op. cit. pp. 99, 107-108; Keller, Die 
antike Tierwelt, ii, p. 370; Gossen-Steier, RE, Second 
Series, ii. 365. 

’ A term mostly for the black goby, Gobius niger L., the 
most common Mediterranean species. On the identification 
cf. Thompson on Aristotle, Historia Animal. viii. 13 (598 a 
12); Glossary, pp. 137-139; Gossen, RE, Second Series, 
il. 794-796. 

9 The red or plain surmullet, Mullus barbatus L., and the 
striped or common surmullet, Mullus surmuletus L. On 
this fish ef. Cotte, op. cit. pp. 98-101; Keller, op. cit. ii, 
pp. 364 f.; Prechac, Revue d. Et. Lat. xiv (1936), pp. 102- 
105 ; xvii (1939), p. 279; Saint-Denis, op. cit. pp. 68 f.; 
Schmid, op. cit. pp. 310-312; Steier, RE, xvi. 496-503 ; 
Thompson, Glossary, pp. 264-268 ; Andrews, Class. Weekly, 
xlii (1949), pp. 186-188. 


4.29 


(977) 


978 


PLUTARCH’S MORALIA 


τρίγλαν καὶ χρυσωπὸν καὶ σκορπίον, γρίποις τε καὶ 
σαγήναις ,σύρουσι περιλαμβάνοντες" τῶν δικτύων 
οὖν' τὸ γένος ὀρθῶς Ὅμηρος πανάγραν" προσεῖπεν. 
ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα μηχαναὶ ταῖς γαλαῖς εἰσιν" 
ὥσπερ τῷ λάβρακι: συρομένην γὰρ αἰσθανόμενος 
βίᾳ διίστησι. καὶ τύπτει κοιλαίνων" τοὔδαφος" ὅταν 
δὲ ποιήσῃ τῆς ἐπιδρομῆς τοῦ δικτύου “χώραν, ἐνέω- 
σεν᾽ ἑαυτὸν καὶ προσέχεται, μέχρις ἂν παρέλθῃ. 

Δελφὶς δὲ περιληφθείς, 6 οταν συναίσθηται γεγονὼς 
ἐν ἀγκάλαις σαγήνης, ὑπομένει μὴ ταραττόμενος 
ἀλλὰ χαίρων: εὐωχεῖται γὰρ ἄνευ πραγματείας 
ἀφθόνων ἰχθύων παρόντων᾽ ὅταν δὲ πλησίον τῇ γῇ 
προσίῃ, διαφαγὼν" τὸ δίκτυον ἄπεισιν. εἰ δὲ 
φθαίη φυγών, τὸ πρῶτον οὐδὲν ἔπαθε δεινὸν ἀλλὰ 
διαρράψαντες αὐτοῦ περὶ τὸν λόφον ὁλοσχοίνους 
ἀφῆκαν: αὖθις δὲ ληφθέντα πληγαῖς κολάζουσι, 
γνωρίσαντες ἐκ τοῦ διαρράμματος. σπανίως δὲ 
τοῦτο συμβαίνει: συγγνώμης γὰρ τυγχάνοντες τὸ 
πρῶτον εὐγνωμονοῦσιν οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ φυλάττονται 
τὸ λοιπὸν μὴ ἀδικεῖν. 

Ἔτι δὲ πολλῶν τῶν πρὸς εὐλάβειαν καὶ προφυ- 

1 οὖν Bernardakis: ὧν. 
Σ᾿ πάναγρον Hatzidakis and Platt (cf. Jliad, v. 487). 
3 γαλαῖς εἰσιν Bernardakis: γαλαῖσιν. 
4 τύπτων κοιλαίνει Reiske. 5 ἐνέωσεν